Case ID: f-appx_137/html/0103-01.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. Daniel CARNEVALE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-50312.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 28, 2005.
    Ronald L. Cheng, Esq., Robert McGahan, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Callie Glanton Steele, Esq., Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants Appellant.
    Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daniel Carnevale appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of unauthorized access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3). He contends that the district court plainly erred in making non-jury sentencing findings supporting upward adjustments for amount of loss and possession of means of identification obtained by the use of another means of identification under U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b). The record does not show how the district court would have proceeded had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory. Accordingly, we remand for the district court to answer the question whether the sentence would have been materially different if it had known that the Guidelines were advisory. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.