United States of America v. Jordan Huff; Marcus Major

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JORDAN HUFF; MARCUS MAJOR,
Defendants - Appellants.
Nos. 12-10281
12-10282
D.C. No. 1:07-cr-00156-LJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Jordan Huff and Marcus Major appeal from
their sentences imposed by the district court following remand. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Huff and Major contend that the district court erred in its interpretation of
FILED
MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-10281 & 12-10282 2
the scope of our remand when it declined to conduct a plenary resentencing
hearing. We review the district court’s compliance with a mandate from this court
de novo. See United States v. Perez, 475 F.3d 1110, 1112 (9th Cir. 2007). The
district court properly complied with the terms of the mandate to resentence Huff
and Major using one of the brandishing counts as the first conviction.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --