Opinion
No. 06-50002.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed August 6, 2008.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Thomas E. Loeser, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Arthur H. Weed, Santa Barbara, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-01-00738-AHM.
Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), Mario Flores appeals from the district court's order concluding that it would have imposed the same 188-month sentence had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Flores contends that he was entitled to full re-sentencing on remand. However, because this Court ordered a limited remand pursuant to Ameline and the district court subsequently ruled that it would not have imposed a different sentence had it known that the Guidelines were advisory, Flores was not entitled to resentencing. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1071, 169 L.Ed.2d 816 (2008); see also United States v. Perez, 475 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that district court is required to comply with this Court's mandate).