Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Keith FURLONG, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-18
Citations: 264 F. App'x 615
Docket Number: No. 06-30568
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Keith FURLONG, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 264
Pages: 615–616

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Keith FURLONG, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30568.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008 .
Filed Jan. 18, 2008.
James E. Seykora, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, Paulette L. Stewart, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Darla J. Mondou, Esq., Maraña, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, 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
Following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), Kevin Keith Furlong appeals from the district court's order concluding that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Furlong contends that the district court erred on remand because it failed to understand the full scope of its discretion. However, this contention is belied by the record. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (9th Cir.2006). Moreover, because the district court determined that Furlong's sentence would not have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, Furlong was not entitled to a resentencing hearing. See id.; Ameline, 409 F.3d at 1085. To the extent Furlong raises additional contentions, these contentions are not reviewable. See Combs, 470 F.3d at 1296-97.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.