Case ID: f-appx_265/html/0578-01.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 Luis RODRIGUEZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 07-50048.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2008.
    Lawrence S. Middleton, Esq., Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jonathan D. Libby, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Rodriguez-Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s decision, following a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), that it would not have imposed a different sentence had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rodriguez-Gonzalez contends that the district court erred by failing to give him the opportunity to submit new evidence on remand and by failing to provide an explanation for its determination that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known the Guidelines were advisory. Both arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (9th Cir.2006).

Rodriguez-Gonzalez’ argument that the district court erred by re-sentencing him without a hearing is foreclosed by United States v. Silva, 472 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 201, 169 L.Ed.2d 135 (2007).

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