Case ID: f-appx_135/html/0129-01.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. Kenny Ly KAING, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-10301.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2005.
    
    Decided June 21, 2005.
    Mary L. Grad, AUSA, USSAC — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Victor S. Haltom, Esq., Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, MCKEOWN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See 
        Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Defendant Kenny Ly Kaing appeals the sentence imposed by the district court. The sentence was imposed under the Sentencing Guidelines based on facts that were not admitted by Defendant or determined by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

After the district court imposed Defendant’s sentence, the Supreme Court held that in order to avoid a violation of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights by the imposition of mandatory sentence enhancements based on judge-found facts, the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory, not mandatory. United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Consequently, we remand Defendant’s sentence so 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, 409 F.3d 1073, 1074 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). The district court should follow the procedures outlined in Ameline. See id. at 1084-85.

SENTENCE REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.