Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael J. WOLD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-13
Citations: 161 F. App'x 732
Docket Number: No. 04-30409; D.C. No. CR-03-00306-JCC
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael J. WOLD, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 732–732

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael J. WOLD, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-30409.
D.C. No. CR-03-00306-JCC.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 9, 2006.
Decided Jan. 13, 2006.
Kelly L. Harris, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ralph A. Hurvitz, Esq, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HUG, O’SCANNLAIN and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael J. Wold appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Because appellant 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, we remand to the sentencing court to answer that question, and to proceed pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, 419 F.3d 906, 916 (9th Cir.2005) (extending Ameline's limited remand procedure to cases involving non-constitutional error under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)); see also United States v. Velasquez-Reyes, 427 F.3d 1227, 1228 (9th Cir.2005) (rejecting contention that prior convictions must be proved to a jury if not admitted by the defendant and reaffirming that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), has not been overruled).
REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.