United States of America v. Kingsley Iyare Osemwengie

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KINGSLEY IYARE OSEMWENGIE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10361
D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00100-RLH-
LRL-1
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KINGSLEY IYARE OSEMWENGIE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10362
D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00002-RLH-
GWF-2
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2014 **
San Francisco, California
FILED
MAY 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Before: SILVERMAN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and LEMELLE, District
Judge.***
Defendant Kingsley Osemwengie appeals from a 12-month sentence
imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Osemwengie first argues that the revocation of his supervised release was
invalid because the new violations occurred before the revocation period began to
run. This argument is simply factually incorrect: at the supervised release
revocation hearing, Osemwengie specifically admitted that he committed new
violations during the term of his supervised release.
Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the
12-month sentence to be served consecutively to a previously imposed sentence by
a federal district court in Oregon. The Oregon district court had been aware of the
pending revocation proceeding against Osemwengie and stated that it intended its
sentence to be served concurrently with the not-yet-imposed Nevada sentence. We
have repeatedly stated, however, that “federal courts ‘cannot order a sentence to
run either concurrently or consecutively to a non-existent term.’” Reynolds v.
*** The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Taylor v. Sawyer, 284 F.3d
1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also United States v. Montes-Ruiz, __ F.3d __,
2014 WL 1099504, at *5-6 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2014) (holding that the
Taylor/Reynolds rule still applies to prospective federal sentences following Setser
v. United States, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1463, 1468 (2012)). Thus, the Nevada
district court here was in no way required to follow the wishes of the Oregon
district court and did not abuse its discretion when it refused to do so.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --