Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Elisando MONGUIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-18
Citations: 180 F. App'x 726
Docket Number: No. 04-10479
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Elisando MONGUIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 726–726

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Elisando MONGUIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-10479.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2006.
Filed May 18, 2006.
Marlon Cobar, Esq., USSF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John J. Jordan, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Monguia appeals his 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being found in the United States after illegal re-entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we remand.
Monguia contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by imposing a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) based on a prior conviction that was neither proved to a jury nor admitted during the plea colloquy. This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 & n. 16 (9th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 1911, 164 L.Ed.2d 667 (2006).
As to Monguia's contention that the case should be remanded for re-sentencing, because Monguia was sentenced under the then-mandatory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the district court to proceed pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, 419 F.3d 906, 916 (9th Cir.2005).
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.