Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin Lynn WATTS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-19
Citations: 177 F. App'x 665
Docket Number: No. 03-30228
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Benjamin Lynn WATTS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 665–666

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Benjamin Lynn WATTS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-30228.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 19, 2006.
Kirk A. Engdall, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff—Appellee.
Shaun S. McCrea, Esq., McCrea, P.C., Eugene, OR, for Defendant—Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
This case was remanded to this court from the United States Supreme Court for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The Court sua sponte recalls the mandate. The memorandum disposition filed on June 22, 2004, is vacated.
We cannot determine from the record whether the district court would have imposed a materially different sentence if it had known that the Guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory. Therefore, under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), we remand for the limited purpose of making that determination. In fulfilling this mandate, the district court may hold such hearings and enter such orders as it determines to be necessary, including, without limitation, modifying or vacating its previous sentence.
REMANDED.