Case ID: f-appx_155/html/0333-01.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. Javier BELTRAN-MADRID, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-10128.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.
    
    Decided Dec. 12, 2005.
    Claire Kiehl Lefkowitz, Nathan D. Leonardo, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Francisco Leon, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Javier Beltran-Madrid appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Appellant contends that the district court violated his due process rights by using information the probation office acquired during the presentence investigation interview to increase his criminal history score. We reject this contention because appellant does not claim, and the record does not suggest, that his cooperation with the probation office was involuntary. See Derrick v. Peterson, 924 F.2d 813, 817 (9th Cir.1991).

Because appellant was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the sentencing court to proceed pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, 419 F.3d 906, 915-16 (9th Cir.2005).

Appellant’s motion to file supplemental briefing is denied as moot.

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.