
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin NAVARRO-PUERTA, a.k.a. Martin Navarizo-Puerta, a.k.a. Martin Missael Navarro-Puerta, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10101.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 30, 2015.
    Matthew Cassell, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Philip Kimble, Law Office of P. Kimble, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martin Navarro-Puerta appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 51-month, sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in Violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand to the district court for resentenc-ing.

Navarro-Puerta contends that the district court procedurally erred by treating the Guidelines as mandatory. The record suggests that the district court may have believed it could not vary from the Guidelines range under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (it is procedural error to treat the Guidelines as mandatory). Furthermore, the record shows that the district court incorrectly believed that it was obligated to impose a term of supervised release. See U.S.S.G. § 5Dl.l(c). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Navarro-Puerta’s remaining contentions.

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     