Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Chi Ping LEUNG, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-04
Citations: 418 F.3d 1003
Docket Number: No. 03-50098
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Chi Ping LEUNG, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 418
Pages: 1003–1004

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Chi Ping LEUNG, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-50098.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 4, 2005.
Kim I. Meyer, Esq., Daniel D. Rubinstein, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Phillip I. Bronson, Esq., Law Offices of Phillip I. Bronson, Encino, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
David Chi Ping Leung, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
David Leung was convicted of possession with intent to distribute methylenedi-oxy-methamphetamine ("Ecstacy") in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 151 months. Leung appealed the admission of expert testimony regarding unknowing couriers, the admission of his post-arrest statements, the district court's refusal to give a "mere presence" instruction to the jury, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the denial of a sentencing adjustment. We affirmed Leung's convic tion and sentence in a memorandum disposition. United States v. Leung, 95 Fed. Appx. 876 (9th Cir.2004). The Supreme Court vacated that disposition and remanded to this court in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Leung v. United States, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1046, 160 L.Ed.2d 992 (2005). We now reaffirm Leung's conviction for the reasons stated in our original disposition. See Leung, 95 Fed.Appx. at 876. We grant a limited remand to allow the district court to determine "whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the sentencing guidelines were advisory." United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1074 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).
REMANDED.