Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis Charles MORGAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-10
Citations: 291 F. App'x 852
Docket Number: No. 06-50234
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Louis Charles MORGAN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 291
Pages: 852–852

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Louis Charles MORGAN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-50234.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Sept. 10, 2008.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, Robert Gannon, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Elizabeth A. Newman, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Louis Charles Morgan appeals from the district court's decision, following a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), that it would not have imposed a different sentence had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Morgan contends that the district court erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors during the Ameline remand. We conclude that the district court "properly understood the full scope of [its] discretion in a post-Booker world." 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.