United States v. Pridgette, No. 14-30223 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of transporting a stolen vehicle, being a felon in possession of a firearm, possessing counterfeit credit cards and possessing counterfeiting devices. Defendant was sentenced to 137 months in prison and ordered to pay restitution. The government subsequently conceded that certain detention facility documents were not in the record. Given the government's concession, the court allowed the Assistant U.S. Attorney 48 hours to consider whether to confess error. The government responded by requesting a remand to allow the district court to consider a more fully developed record. At issue on appeal is whether a remand for resentencing should be on an open or closed record. The court concluded that when the government does not have occasion to tender a fully developed argument, the court remands for resentencing on an open record. In this case, defendant specifically objected to the proposed sentence on three separate occasions, the government was on notice of the factual deficiencies in its papers and had opportunities to supplement the record, and the government chose not to do so, preferring to rest on evidence that it later conceded was insufficient to support its position. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated the district court’s sentencing order and restitution order and remanded for resentencing on the existing record after the government conceded error. As to the sentence, the government conceded that the record before the district court did not establish that the defendant served sufficient time in custody to support the assessment of two criminal history points for each of two prior convictions. The panel declined to follow the usual course when a district court errs in sentencing, and remand for resentencing on an open record, because the government squarely raised its arguments before the district court and tried but failed to prove facts supporting an increased sentence; in other words, there was a failure of proof after a full inquiry into the factual questions at issue. Judge O’Scannlain concurred in the court’s vacatur of the sentence and restitution order and in its remand for resentencing. He dissented from the court’s decision to remand on a closed record because the defendant did not request this remedy. In addition, Judge O’Scannlain was not convinced that the district court conducted a “full inquiry” into the duration of the defendant’s prior sentences. UNITED STATES V. PRIDGETTE 3
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.