Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony TISCARENO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-21
Citations: 167 F. App'x 684
Docket Number: No. 04-30527
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony TISCARENO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CUDAHY, T.G. NELSON and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 167
Pages: 684–684

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony TISCARENO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-30527.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 18, 2005.
Decided Feb. 21, 2006.
Lori Harper Suek, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kelly J. Vames, Esq., Hendrickson, Everson, Noennig & Woodward, P.C., Billings, MT, Darla J. Mondou, Esq., Upton, MA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CUDAHY, T.G. NELSON and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Anthony Tiseareno appeals his sentence of 327 months, imposed following his conviction of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and the finding by a sentencing jury that he was an organizer, leader, or manager, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(b).
Tiseareno was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. The district court imposed an alternative sentence in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). However, this alternative sentence was imposed under the statute of conviction and did not follow the sentencing prescription set forth in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Because we cannot reliably determine whether the district court would have given Tiseareno a materially different sentence had it known the sentencing scheme outlined in Booker, we remand this case to the district court to answer this question, pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).
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.