Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro QUINTERO-QUINTERO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-23
Citations: 144 F. App'x 695
Docket Number: No. 04-30426
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Pedro QUINTERO-QUINTERO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 695–696

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Pedro QUINTERO-QUINTERO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-30426.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.
Decided Sept. 23, 2005.
Pamela J. Byerly, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Amy Rubin, 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
Pedro Quintero-Quintero appeals the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 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, 915-16 (9th Cir.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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.