Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Terry ALDEN, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Alden, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-24
Citations: 265 F. App'x 552
Docket Number: Nos. 06-10414, 06-10435
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Terry ALDEN, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Alden, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 552–553

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Terry ALDEN, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Alden, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 06-10414, 06-10435.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008 .
Filed Jan. 24, 2008.
George L. Bevan, Jr., AUSA, Barbara J. Valliere, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Karen L. Landau, Esq., Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Keith Terry Alden appeals from the district court's judgments, following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), concluding that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Alden contends that his sentence must be reversed because the district court failed to consider the "parsimony principle," a consideration in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), when it declined to order full re- sentencing. This contention is not reviewable because the district court determined, on remand, that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence under an advisory Guidelines system. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (9th Cir.2006).
Alden also contends that the district court erred by not ordering a resentencing hearing. This claim fails because there is no right to re-sentencing on a limited remand unless the district court determines it would have imposed a materially different sentence. See id. at 1297.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.