Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anietie James OKPON, aka Seal B, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-17
Citations: 171 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: No. 03-50075
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anietie James OKPON, aka Seal B, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anietie James OKPON, aka Seal B, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-50075.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Decided March 17, 2006.
Wesley L. Hsu, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff — Appellee.
Anietie James Okpon, Taft, CA, pro se.
Before: CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Anietie James Okpon appeals from the 78-month sentence imposed following his jury trial conviction for conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, loan fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014, mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Okpon contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it ordered restitution. This claim is foreclosed by United States v. Bussell, 414 F.3d 1048, 1060 (9th Cir.2005) (stating that district court orders of restitution are unaffected by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order of restitution.
Okpon 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. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).
Okpon shall notify the court within 14 days of the filing date of this memorandum disposition if appellant wants to pursue an Ameline remand. See id. at 1084. If Okpon does not respond to this inquiry, the district court's sentence shall be affirmed.
BRIEFING ORDERED.
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.