Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles VONLEWIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-21
Citations: 255 F. App'x 205
Docket Number: No. 06-10412
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charles VONLEWIS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 255
Pages: 205–205

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charles VONLEWIS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-10412.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2007.
Filed Nov. 21, 2007.
Robert L. Ellman, Esq., William R. Reed, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Arthur L. Allen, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Charles Vonlewis appeals from the district court's decision that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence following a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Vonlewis contends that his sentence is unreasonable under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because the district court did not allow him to interview with a probation officer and did not articulate its consideration of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, our review of a district court's decision not to resentence a defendant following a remand pursuant to Ameline is limited to whether "the district [court] properly understood the full scope of [its] discretion" under Booker. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.2006). We conclude that the record reflects that the district court "understood [its] post-Booker authority to impose a non-Guidelines sentence." See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.