USA V. JASON DUNLAP, No. 16-30211 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-30211 D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00107-SI-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JASON ANDREW DUNLAP, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 10, 2018 Portland, Oregon Before: WARDLAW and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and MÁRQUEZ,** District Judge. Jason Andrew Dunlap (“Defendant”) appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court miscalculated the applicable guideline range and erroneously concluded it lacked authority to sentence Defendant below the statutory mandatory minimum. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Rosemary Márquez, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. We vacate and remand for resentencing in light of United States v. Reinhart, 893 F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2018). The parties first addressed Reinhart in Rule 28(j) letters filed shortly before oral argument. Defendant had previously conceded that the prior state conviction charged in the Information triggered a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e). However, Reinhart constitutes an intervening change in the law that may affect the analysis of this issue, and the parties agree that remand is appropriate to allow the district court to evaluate in the first instance the potential impact of Reinhart on the applicable statutory mandatory minimum. Because we find that remand is appropriate in light of Reinhart, we decline to address at this juncture the other issues raised in Defendant’s appeal. VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing. 2

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.