Case ID: f3d_412/html/1051-01.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. George Michael RUELAS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George Michael Ruelas, Defendant-Appellee.
    Nos. 02-50600, 02-50660.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    June 16, 2005.
    Beverly Reid O’Connell, Esq., Lizabeth A. Rhodes, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Joel Levine, Esq., Encino, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KLEINFELD, WARDLAW, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

Upon remand from the United States Supreme Court, we have reconsidered this case in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and we therefore order that the memorandum disposition filed on May 5, 2004 be amended as follows:

Page 2, line 9: Delete the phrase “and we affirm” from the sentence beginning with “We have jurisdiction.... ” Add a new sentence stating, “We affirm Ruelas’s conviction, and remand in accordance with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc)”.

Page 8, line 10: Insert a new section six, entitled “Sixth Amendment Error,” followed by the following paragraph:

Because Ruelas did not challenge his sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds in the district court, we grant a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

Last line of the disposition: Replace “AFFIRMED” with “AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED”

It is so ORDERED.