
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro GARCIA-BANOS, a.k.a. Pedro Banos-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 16-10480, 16-10481
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed October 27, 2017
    Margaret Perimeter, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Joseph A. Duarte, Trial Attorney, Joseph A. Duarte, Attorney at Law, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Pedro Garcia-Banos appeals the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and consecutive 21-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

Garcia-Banos contends that the district court failed to appreciate its discretion to impose a partially concurrent sentence. At sentencing, Garcia-Banos requested that the court run his sentences partially concurrently. The government responded that it doubted the lawfulness of a partially concurrent sentence. The court did not resolve the dispute so we cannot determine whether the district court understood its discretion to impose a partially concurrent sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) & cmt. n.4(C) (district court may impose sentence on a new offense to run consecutively, concurrently, or partially concurrently to undischarged term of imprisonment resulting from revocation of supervised release). Under these circumstances, we vacate Garcia-Banos’s sentence and remand for resentencing. See United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir. 2011).

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     