Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan M. MONTENEGRO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-18
Citations: 146 F. App'x 207
Docket Number: No. 04-30408; D.C. No. CR-02-00048-BLW
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan M. MONTENEGRO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before T.G. NELSON, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan M. MONTENEGRO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-30408.
D.C. No. CR-02-00048-BLW.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.
Decided Oct. 18, 2005.
Rafael M. Gonzalez, Jr., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David N. Parmenter, David N. Parmenter & Associates, Blackfoot, ID, 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
Juan M. Montenegro appeals his 87-month sentence imposed after pleading guilty to distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we remand.
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 Booker error).
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Appellant's February 11, 2005, motion to supplement appellant's brief is denied as unnecessary.