Case ID: f-appx_325/html/0622-01.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. Brian MCLUCAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-50316.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 12, 2009.
    
    Filed May 26, 2009.
    Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Carole C. Peterson, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    William C. Melcher, Esq., Melcher Mel-cher & Melcher Trillium Towers Center, Woodland Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Brian McLucas appeals from the district court’s order determining that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005)(en banc). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we remand.

The government asserts that this appeal is barred by McLucas’s appeal waiver. We conclude that the government has waived the waiver by requesting the Ameline remand. See United States v. Garcia-Lopez, 309 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.2002).

McLucas contends that the district court failed to comply with our mandate under Ameline because it did not obtain the written views of counsel regarding resentenc-ing under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines before it issued its order responding to our remand. We remand because it is not apparent from this record that counsel had a meaningful opportunity to submit their written views on this issue. See United States v. Montgomery, 462 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir.2006) (“The court must implement both the letter and the spirit of the mandate”).

We do not reach McLucas’s remaining contention.

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