USA V. MICAH GODFREY, No. 14-10246 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 1 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-10246 D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00117-KJM MEMORANDUM* MICAH JAMES GODFREY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Micah James Godfrey appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Godfrey argues, and the government agrees, that remand is warranted because the district court improperly imposed the custodial sentence in order to promote Godfrey’s rehabilitation. We agree that the record reflects that the court imposed the length of the sentence to ensure that Godfrey would continue to receive mental health treatment in custody. We, therefore, vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. See Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2391 (2011); United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 282 (9th Cir. 2011) (rehabilitation “cannot be the reason” for imposing a term of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release). VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing. 2 14-10246

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.