USA V. ROBERT KENT, No. 12-50186 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 06 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 12-50186 D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00463-PSG-1 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT ALLEN KENT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted January 8, 2014 Pasadena, California Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. 1. When a district court rejects a defendant s non-frivolous sentencing argument, it must provide a reasoned explanation for its decision. See United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1010 11 (9th Cir. 2013). The district court abused its discretion by failing to do so in response to Kent s assertion that the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. page 2 distribution enhancement shouldn t apply. See United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir. 2005). Because we reverse for resentencing on this ground, we need not address Kent s claim that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. 2. The district court didn t abuse its discretion by requiring Kent to participate in the Computer Monitoring Program as a condition of release. It s entirely appropriate to leave the details of what [monitoring] technologies should be used to the Probation Office. United States v. Quinzon, 643 F.3d 1266, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011). If technology has changed by the time Kent is released from prison, and he believes that Probation has not met its continuing obligation to ensure not only the efficacy of the computer surveillance methods used, but also that they remain reasonably tailored so as not to be unnecessarily intrusive, id., he may seek relief from the district court at that time. REVERSED AND REMANDED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
