Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronnie Lynn SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-12
Citations: 138 F. App'x 966
Docket Number: No. 04-30258
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ronnie Lynn SMITH, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 138
Pages: 966–967

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ronnie Lynn SMITH, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-30258.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 2, 2005.
Decided July 12, 2005.
Carl E. Rostad, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Evangelo Arvanetes, Esq., Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
We previously affirmed Smith's conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon, see United States v. Smith, 130 Fed.Appx. 876 (9th Cir.2005), and we now address Smith's challenge to his sentence.
Smith contends he was sentenced in violation of the Sixth Amendment because the district court (1) increased his base offense level by four levels — from 19 to 23 — due to its finding of serious bodily injury to the victim, and (2) increased his sentencing range on the basis of findings regarding his criminal history. Any Sixth Amendment violation resulting from the enhancement for serious bodily injury is probably harmless in light of the career offender designation which increased Smith's base offense level to 24, and the career offender designation does not violate the Sixth Amendment because it is based on the fact of prior convictions. See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,—F.3d-, 2005 U.S.App. LEXIS 13316, No. 03-30387, slip op. 7773, 7790-91 n. 8 (9th Cir. July 5, 2005). However, Smith's sentence is tainted by nonconstitutional error: it was enhanced pursuant to mandatory sentencing guidelines. In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker,—U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and our decision in United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005), we remand to the district court for further proceedings. See also Moreno-Hernandez,—F.3d at-, slip op. at 7793-94.
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.