Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Gordon SPEELMAN, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Gordon Speelman, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Gordon Speelman, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-28
Citations: 265 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: Nos. 06-30186 to 06-30138
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Gordon SPEELMAN, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Gordon Speelman, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Gordon Speelman, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 620–621

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Gordon SPEELMAN, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Gordon Speelman, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Gordon Speelman, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 06-30186 to 06-30138.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
Filed Jan. 28, 2008.
Marcia Good Hurd, Esq., Ed Zink, USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Brad L. Arndorfer, Esq., Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
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
Jeffrey Gordon Speelman appeals from the district court's order upon limited remand pursuant to United States v. Arneline, 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 United States Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Speelman's contention that the district court's failure to hold a resentencing hearing to allow him to present additional evi dence violated his due process rights is foreclosed. See United States v. Silva, 472 F.3d 683, 687-88 (9th Cir.2007) (recognizing that, in the context of an Ameline remand, due process does not require that a defendant be given the opportunity to present new evidence unless a new sentence is to be imposed).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.