Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Federico RODRIGUEZ-OLVEDO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-21
Citations: 146 F. App'x 903
Docket Number: No. 04-50481
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Federico RODRIGUEZ-OLVEDO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: T.G. NELSON, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 903–904

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Federico RODRIGUEZ-OLVEDO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-50481.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.
Decided Oct. 21, 2005.
April A. Christine, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Tanaka, Esq., FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: T.G. NELSON, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federico Rodriguez-Olvedo appeals his 57-month sentence imposed following a guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation and conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 for further proceedings consistent with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). See United States v. Hermoso-Garcia, 413 F.3d 1085, 1089-90 (9th Cir.2005).
SENTENCE 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.