Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas A. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-19
Citations: 143 F. App'x 882
Docket Number: No. 04-30184
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas A. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 143
Pages: 882–883

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas A. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-30184.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.
Decided Sept. 19, 2005.
Stephanie J. Lister, USSP—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kathleen Moran, Esq., FPDWA—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Thomas A. Johnson appeals his 27-month sentence imposed after a guilty plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Because appellant was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the sentencing court to answer that question, and to proceed pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, 419 F.3d 906 (9th Cir.2005) (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2005) (extending Ameline's limited remand procedure to cases involving non-constitutional Booker error).
REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.