Opinion
No. 06-30044.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed February 16, 2007.
Marcia Good Hurd, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David A. Duke, Esq., Law Office of David A. Duke, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Jack D. Shanstrom, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-99-00112-JDS-07.
Before: BEEZER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
The Government acknowledged in its letter submitted pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 28(j) that the district court did not solicit the views of counsel before it issued its order responding to our previous Ameline remand. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). "[O]n Ameline remand, a district court must obtain, or at least solicit, the views of counsel in writing before deciding whether re-sentencing is appropriate." United States v. Montgomery, 462 F.3d 1067, 1069 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings consistent with Ameline and Montgomery. REMANDED.