Case ID: f-appx_255/html/0265-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose MILANES-SANCHEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-30145.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2007 .
    Filed Nov. 26, 2007.
    Pamela Jackson Byerly, Esq., USSP— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kathleen E. Moran, Esq., FPDWA— Federal Public Defender’s Office (Eastern WA & ID), Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Milanes-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s order upon limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), concluding that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Milanes-Sanchez contends that the district court erred by not holding a resentencing hearing following this Court’s remand pursuant to Ameline. Because the district court determined that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory, Milanes-Sanchez is not entitled to a resentencing hearing. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (9th Cir.2006); Ameline, 409 F.3d at 1085. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err.

Moreover, the record indicates that the district court understood its discretion to impose a sentence outside of the Guidelines and did not treat the Guidelines range as a presumptive sentence. See Combs, 470 F.3d at 1297.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.