Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben Leslie MOQUINO, aka John L. Doe, Jessie Moquino, Little Moco Moquino, John L. Osife, Coker Moquino, John Albert Moquino, Rat Moquino, Ruben Shaul, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-19
Citations: 163 F. App'x 621
Docket Number: No. 04-10321; D.C. No. CR-02-01168-DGC
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben Leslie MOQUINO, aka John L. Doe, Jessie Moquino, Little Moco Moquino, John L. Osife, Coker Moquino, John Albert Moquino, Rat Moquino, Ruben Shaul, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 163
Pages: 621–621

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben Leslie MOQUINO, aka John L. Doe, Jessie Moquino, Little Moco Moquino, John L. Osife, Coker Moquino, John Albert Moquino, Rat Moquino, Ruben Shaul, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-10321.
D.C. No. CR-02-01168-DGC.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 9, 2006.
Decided Jan. 19, 2006.
Joan G. Ruffennach, Thomas C. Simon, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James S. Park, Park Law Office, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ruben Leslie Moquino appeals from the 87-month sentence imposed following his jury trial conviction for one count of assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153, 113(a)(3). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We remand for further proceedings consistent with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.