United States v. Manukyan

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ASHOT MANUKYAN, aka…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 9, 2005

02-50464, 02-50573 (9th Cir. Jun. 9, 2005)

Opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ASHOT MANUKYAN, aka Ashot Gagik Manukian, §Yurik§, Defendant - Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SOUSANA OUNOUSIAN, Defendant - Appellant. Nos. 02-50464, 02-50573 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit June 9, 2005

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

DC CR-01-01010-DMT-01, CR-01-01010-DMT-03

Before: REINHARDT and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges and WEINER, District Judge.^*

* The Honorable Charles R. Weiner, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

ORDER

In No. 02-50464:

On February 9, 2005, we filed a memorandum disposition remanding Defendant§s sentence for reconsideration under United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). After our court ordered that United States v. Ameline, No. 02-30326 be reheard en banc, see 401 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2005), we stayed the mandate in this case pending the decision of the en banc panel in Ameline, in an order filed on April 19, 2005. That decision having been filed, we amend the memorandum filed February 9, 2005 pertaining to No. 02-50464 by substituting the following:

Ashot Manukyan raises a challenge to the sentence imposed following his guilty plea. We remand the Defendant§s sentence so that the district court can determine §whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory.§ United States v. Ameline, No. 02-30326, slip op. at 3 (9th Cir. June 1, 2005) (en banc); see United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). The district court should follow the procedures outlined in Ameline at 27-29.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

The mandate in this case shall issue forthwith. In No. 02-50573:

On February 9, 2005, we filed a memorandum disposition affirming Defendant§s conviction and remanding her sentence for reconsideration pursuant to Booker . Because it appeared that the portion of Defendant§s sentence that was not called into question by Booker would expire before the en banc panel§s decision in Ameline was expected to be filed, we declined to stay the mandate in this case, and thus the mandate was filed in the district court on March 29, 2005. See United States v. Castro, 382 F.3d 927, 929 (9th Cir. 2004) (§Where the portion of the sentence that is clearly unaffected by Blakely and Ameline has expired or will expire shortly, we deem it appropriate to remand the case to the district court for whatever action it determines to be proper under the circumstances. Among the options available to the district court, within the exercise of its discretion, would be to reconsider its sentence . . . .§).

The Government§s Motion for Clarification Regarding Stay of Mandate was filed in this case on May 26, 2005. The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. To the extent that the motion amounts to a motion to recall the mandate issued on March 29, the motion is denied. As a request for clarification, the motion is granted and the clarification is provided in this order. The sentence has been remanded to the district court for reconsideration. At this point, the district court should either resentence Defendant Ounousian or, following the procedures outlined in the Ameline en banc decision, determine whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory and proceed accordingly.

MOTION GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.