USA V. BRANDON WARD, No. 18-50329 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-50329 D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00645-GW-2 v. MEMORANDUM* BRANDON NICHOLAS WARD, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 18, 2019 Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON,** District Judge. Brandon Ward appeals the district court’s ruling to run his sentence on Count II consecutively under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A and in accordance with United States v. Gonzalez, 520 U.S. 1, 10 (1997). We agree that the district court has no * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. discretion under § 1028A, and it must run the federal and state sentences consecutively. 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(b)(2). The Aggravated Identity Theft statute, 18 U.S.C.§ 1028A(b)(2), requires a consecutive sentence. The district court was correct in this regard. Ward also argues that his appellate waiver is not applicable. We decline to dismiss the appeal on the basis of the appeal waiver and instead affirm on the merits. See United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). AFFIRMED. 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.