Case ID: f-appx_136/html/0963-01.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. Alfred Toma MULIFAI, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-30253.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 28, 2005.
    Audrey J. Renschen and Jo Ann Farrington, Esq., USAK — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff— Appellee.
    Sue Ellen Tatter, Esq., FPDAK — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant — 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

Alfred Mulifai appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & (k) and 924(a)(2) & (a)(1)(B). He contends that in imposing a sentence pursuant to a mandatory guidelines scheme, the district court plainly erred by making non-jury findings supporting an upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) for using the firearm in an assault. 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, 1085 (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.