Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phongsoon DEJANU, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-24
Citations: 265 F. App'x 551
Docket Number: No. 06-10385
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phongsoon DEJANU, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 551–552

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phongsoon DEJANU, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10385.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
Filed Jan. 24, 2008.
Hartley M.K. West, Esq., USSF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Karen L. Landau, Esq., Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Phongsoon Dejanu appeals from the district court's order, following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), concluding that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Dejanu contends that his sentence must be reversed because the district court failed to consider the "parsimony principle," a consideration in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), when it declined to order full re-sentencing. This contention is not reviewable because the district court determined, on remand, that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence under an advisory Guidelines system. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (9th Cir.2006).
Dejanu also contends that the district court erred by declining to consider evidence that his health had deteriorated since his original sentencing. Because the limited Ameline remand only requires that the district court determine what it would have done "at the time" of the original sentencing, the district court did not have to consider the additional evidence. See Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1083.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.