Case ID: f-appx_265/html/0552-01.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. Keith Terry ALDEN, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Alden, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 06-10414, 06-10435.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 14, 2008 .
    Filed Jan. 24, 2008.
    George L. Bevan, Jr., AUSA, Barbara J. Valliere, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Karen L. Landau, Esq., Oakland, 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

Keith Terry Alden appeals from the district court’s judgments, following a 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 Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Alden contends that his sentence must be reversed because the district court failed to consider the “parsimony principle,” a consideration in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), when it declined to order full re-sentencing. This contention is not reviewable because the district court determined, on remand, that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence under an advisory Guidelines system. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (9th Cir.2006).

Alden also contends that the district court erred by not ordering a resentencing hearing. This claim fails because there is no right to re-sentencing on a limited remand unless the district court determines it would have imposed a materially different sentence. See id. at 1297.

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