Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noel BRAVO-SOSA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-28
Citations: 249 F. App'x 579
Docket Number: No. 06-10282
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noel BRAVO-SOSA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 249
Pages: 579–580

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noel BRAVO-SOSA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10282.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
Filed Sept. 28, 2007.
Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael B. Bigelow, Esq., Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Noel Bravo-Sosa appeals from the district court's judgment upon limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), concluding that his 293-month sentence would not have been materially different under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Bravo-Sosa contends that the district court failed to adequately state reasons for the sentence, and that the sentence is unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, the district court considered the sentence upon limited remand and determined that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence under an advisory Guidelines system. We conclude that the district court understood the full scope of its discretion following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, the district court's decision was reasonable. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.