Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando BALTAZAR-GARCIA, a.k.a. Armando Garcia Baltazar, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-20
Citations: 254 F. App'x 658
Docket Number: No. 06-10308
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando BALTAZAR-GARCIA, a.k.a. Armando Garcia Baltazar, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW and IKUTA Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 254
Pages: 658–658

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando BALTAZAR-GARCIA, a.k.a. Armando Garcia Baltazar, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10308.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 22, 2007.
Filed Nov. 20, 2007.
Joelyn Marlowe, George Ferko, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sean Bruner, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW and IKUTA Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Armando Baltazar-Garcia appeals from the district court's order, following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), concluding that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Baltazar-Garcia contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, the district court considered the sentence upon limited remand and determined that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence under an advisory Guidelines system. We conclude that under any standard of review this sentence is reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.