Case ID: f-appx_220/html/0720-01.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. Mark Allen McMILLION, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-30044.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 9, 2007 .
    Filed Feb. 16, 2007.
    Marcia Good Hurd, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    David A. Duke, Esq., Law Office of David A. Duke, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEEZER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   ORDER

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). “[0]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. 
      
      ® This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.