Case ID: f-appx_241/html/0438-01.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. Marcos MEJIA-MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-50019.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submission deferred Dec. 4, 2006.
    
      Submitted July 26, 2007 .
    Filed July 30, 2007.
    Becky S. Walker, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, Sean K Lokey, Esq., USR-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jonathan D. Libby, Esq., FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

“Ameline provides no right for a defendant even to be present during” a hearing. United States v. Silva, 472 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir.2007). Defendant wasn’t entitled to be present at the limited remand hearing as a matter of Due Process because an Ameline remand requires only that the district court make a subjective determination about what it would have done had it known the Guidelines were advisory. It is therefore not a critical stage in the proceedings. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2658, 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 doesn’t apply because an Ameline remand isn’t a “sentencing” proceeding within the meaning of that rule. Fed. R.Crim.P. 43(a)(3).

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