Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan BARRAZA-RUIZ, aka Jose Barraza-Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Barraza-Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-18
Citations: 145 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: Nos. 04-10156, 04-10157; D.C. Nos. CR-02-01876-JMR, CR-00-00207-3-JMR
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan BARRAZA-RUIZ, aka Jose Barraza-Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Barraza-Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before T.G. NELSON, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 145
Pages: 620–620

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan BARRAZA-RUIZ, aka Jose Barraza-Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Barraza-Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 04-10156, 04-10157.
D.C. Nos. CR-02-01876-JMR, CR-00-00207-3-JMR.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.
Decided Oct. 18, 2005.
Bruce M. Ferg, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Evo A. Deconcini, U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before T.G. NELSON, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated appeals, Jose Barraza-Ruiz appeals his 77-month sentence imposed after pleading guilty to illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
As to appellant's supervised release revocation in case number 04-10156, we reject appellant's contention that the district court should have sentenced him to concurrent sentences. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584. Accordingly, we affirm.
Regarding appellant's § 1326 sentence in case number 04-10157, we reject appellant's contentions. However, 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, 916 (9th Cir.2005) (extending Ameline's limited remand procedure to cases involving non-constitutional Booker error).
Case number 04-10156 is AFFIRMED.
Case number 04-10157 is 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.