Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHI JIE PAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-23
Citations: 279 F. App'x 542
Docket Number: No. 06-10562
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHI JIE PAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 279
Pages: 542–542

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHI JIE PAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10562.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 20, 2008.
Filed May 23, 2008.
Marshall H. Silverberg, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Donald L. Wilkerson, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shi Jie Pan appeals from the district court's decision, following a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), that the sentence it imposed would not have been materially different had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Pan contends that, at sentencing, the district court violated his due process rights by requiring the government to prove the factual basis for five Guidelines enhancements by only a preponderance of the evidence, even though the enhancements had an extremely disproportionate impact on his sentence. Because Pan did not raise this contention in his original appeal, it is unreviewable. See United States v. Thornton, 511 F.3d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir.2008); United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.