Case ID: f-appx_164/html/0648-01.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. David CANTER, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-50053.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Jan. 9, 2006.
    Decided Feb. 1, 2006.
    Alicia Villarreal, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff — Appellee.
    Diane E. Berley, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, LEAVY, Circuit Judge, and SEDWICK, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable John W. Sedwick, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Canter appeals the district court’s judgment, reaffirming his sentence, on remand from this court for further proceedings under U.S. v. Castro, 382 F.3d 927 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam).

The district court issued this decision on remand after the Supreme Court had decided U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), holding that the Guidelines were advisory and not mandatory. Canter now asks that the matter be remanded again, because, he contends, the district court still must make an express finding that the prior sentence was reasonable before it may lawfully reaffirm the prior sentence. On the basis of this record, no such finding is now required. There is no suggestion in the record of any reason why this sentence should be deemed unreasonable. None has been presented in the briefs or at oral argument. Another remand is not necessary.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.