Case ID: f-appx_143/html/0825-02.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 Fernando MEJIA-CIENEGA, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-50581.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.
    
    Decided Sept. 15, 2005.
    Peter A. Hernandez, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Michael Tanaka, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Fernando Mejia-Cienega appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we remand.

Mejia-Cienega contends that he is entitled to resentencing under United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (U.S.2005). Mejia-Cienega suffered no Sixth Amendment violation in the imposition of his sentence, which was enhanced solely on the basis of a prior aggravated felony that he admitted to at the change-of-plea hearing. See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, No. 03-30387, 2005 WL 1964483, at *7 n. 8 (9th Cir. Aug.17, 2005) (holding that a sentence enhancement based on the fact of a prior conviction for assault raised no Sixth Amendment problems). However, because Mejia-Cienega was sentenced under the mandatory guidelines we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). See Moreno-Hernandez, 419 F.3d 906, 915 (extending Ameline’s limited remand procedure to non-constitutional Booker error).

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.