Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge BUSTAMANTE-ROCHA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-11
Citations: 269 F. App'x 700
Docket Number: No. 06-10285
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge BUSTAMANTE-ROCHA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 700–701

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge BUSTAMANTE-ROCHA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10285.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 26, 2008.
Filed March 11, 2008.
Frederick A. Battista, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Paul J. Mattern, Esq., Law Offices of Paul J. Mattern, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Bustamante-Rocha appeals from the district court's amended judgment entered after concluding that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were advisory, following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Bustamante-Rocha contends that the district court erred by denying him a two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying the acceptance of responsibility adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n. 2; see also United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 369 F.3d 1076, 1088-90 (9th Cir.2004) (applying U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n. 2).
Bustamante-Rocha also contends that his sentence is unreasonable. This contention is foreclosed because he did not challenge the reasonableness of his sentence in his first appeal. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.