Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antelmo ONTIVEROS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-17
Citations: 270 F. App'x 558
Docket Number: No. 06-10745
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antelmo ONTIVEROS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 270
Pages: 558–559

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antelmo ONTIVEROS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10745.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2008.
Filed March 17, 2008.
Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael B. Bigelow, Esq., Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: T.G. NELSON, TASHIMA and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is an appeal of the district court's order issued on November 21, 2006, reaf firming the sentence, following affirmation in appeal No. 04-10298 of appellant's conviction, but remand of the matter by this court of for further proceedings in light of United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005). On remand, the district court reaffirmed the sentence previously imposed, finding that the sentence imposed was not materially different from the sentence that would have been given had the Court known that the guidelines were advisory.
A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The district court carefully considered the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Further "reasonableness" review by this court is not warranted. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.2006). Appellant's argument that he should have been allowed to allocute when the case was remanded for an Ameline inquiry is foreclosed by this court's opinion in United States v. Silva, 472 F.3d 683 (9th Cir.2007).
Accordingly, appellee's motion for summary affirmance is granted.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.