Interesting case out of the Ninth Circuit. Here’s a taste:

Necklace contends that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a 20-month sentence when the sentencing range suggested by U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a), p.s., was 4 to 10 months imprisonment. He argues that his violation of a supervised release condition requiring him to reside in a prerelease center was due to his inability to keep a job and to meet other of life’s responsibilities, and that this inability is due to his personal history in Native American society. See United States v. Bad Marriage, 392 F.3d 1103, 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that federal courts must be “keenly aware of the underlying social problems facing . . . Native American offenders . . . and of the need of many of these defendants for rehabilitation”). Necklace argues that a 20-month term of imprisonment will not rehabilitate him, nor will it protect the public or afford adequate deterrence.

The district court abused its discretion in concluding that, given Necklace’s history and characteristics, supervised release could not help him, and a 20-month sentence was reasonable. See Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1061-62. We reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the case shall be reassigned to a different district judge. See United States v. Hai Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 2008 WL 4149666 at *11 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2008).