Case ID: f-appx_269/html/0700-01.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. Jorge BUSTAMANTE-ROCHA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-10285.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 26, 2008.
    
    Filed March 11, 2008.
    Frederick A. Battista, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Paul J. Mattern, Esq., Law Offices of Paul J. Mattern, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jorge Bustamante-Rocha appeals from the district court’s amended judgment entered after concluding that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were advisory, following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Bustamante-Rocha contends that the district court erred by denying him a two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying the acceptance of responsibility adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n. 2; see also United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 369 F.3d 1076, 1088-90 (9th Cir.2004) (applying U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n. 2).

Bustamante-Rocha also contends that his sentence is unreasonable. This contention is foreclosed because he did not challenge the reasonableness of his sentence in his first appeal. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.2006).

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