Case ID: f-appx_244/html/0105-01.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. Juan Ramon ORTEGA-BALDERAS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-50159.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 5, 2007.
    
    Filed June 14, 2007.
    Stephen M. Tokarz, Esq., USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michelle Betancourt, Esq., FDSD-Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Ramon Ortega-Balderas appeals from the district court’s judgment, issued on limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-86 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), upholding the original 78-month sentence imposed for his guilty-plea conviction for importing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ortega-Balderas contends that the district court erred in not providing him with an opportunity to allocute before the district court made its decision not to resentence him. This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Silva, 472 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir.2007) (“Our review of Ameline, our due process jurisprudence, and Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 reveals no constitutional or statutory reason to require allocution during an Ameline remand.”).

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