Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Leon MERTENS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-07
Citations: 277 F. App'x 716
Docket Number: No. 07-30077
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Leon MERTENS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 277
Pages: 716–717

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Leon MERTENS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30077.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 5, 2008.
Filed May 7, 2008.
Nancy D. Cook, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Coeur D’Alene, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Greg S. Silvey, Esq., Kuna, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, GRABER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendant Robert Leon Mertens appeals the district court's holding, on remand from this court, that it would not have imposed a different sentence under the now-advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
1. The district court correctly interpreted our "limited remand" as a remand pursuant to the procedures announced in United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). See United States v. Mertens, 166 Fed.Appx. 955, 958 (9th Cir.) (unpublished disposition) ("Our decision in United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, 419 F.3d 906 (9th Cir.2005), obliges us to order a limited remand to the district court."), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1158, 126 S.Ct. 2312, 164 L.Ed.2d 831 (2006). Although we cited Moreno-Hernandez, not Ameline, the former case interpreted and applied the latter.
2. We decline to exercise our discretion to reach Defendant's argument concerning crack cocaine, raised for the first time in a post-briefing letter. See United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621, 630 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that we may decline to reach an issue raised for the first time on appeal). Our decision does not prejudice Defendant's right to seek re-sentencing through the procedures set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.