From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Eynon

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 16, 2005
148 F. App'x 627 (9th Cir. 2005)

Opinion

Submitted September 12, 2005.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Thomas O. Rice, Esq., USSP--Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Francesca D'Angelo, Esq., Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Wm. Fremming Nielsen, Senior Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-03-00074-WFN.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Danny Eynon appeals his 188-month sentence imposed following a guilty plea conviction for two counts of distribution of more than five grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Because appellant was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the sentencing court for further proceedings consistent with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en

Page 628.

banc). See United States v. Hermoso-Garcia, 413 F.3d 1085, 1089-90 (9th Cir.2005).

SENTENCE REMANDED.


Summaries of

United States v. Eynon

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 16, 2005
148 F. App'x 627 (9th Cir. 2005)
Case details for

United States v. Eynon

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Danny EYNON…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 16, 2005

Citations

148 F. App'x 627 (9th Cir. 2005)