Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steve Jeffrey EVENSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-27
Citations: 235 F. App'x 492
Docket Number: No. 06-50539
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steve Jeffrey EVENSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 492–493

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steve Jeffrey EVENSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50539.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 23, 2007 .
Filed July 27, 2007.
Roger W. Haines, Jr., Esq., USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Joseph S. Green, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Frederick M. Carroll, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellee's unopposed motion for summary reversal and remand is granted. The district court failed to provide notice of its intent to sentence appellant outside the range suggested by the Sentencing Guidelines as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h). See United States v. Evans-Martinez, 448 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir.2006). In light of this court's holding in United States v. Evans-Martinez, we vacate the sentence and remand for proceedings consistent with its holding.
Appellant's request for remand to a different district judge is denied. Appellant has not made "a showing that the judge "would not be able to put out of his mind his previously expressed views or that he would ignore the mandate of this court on remand.' " United States v. Peyton, 353 F.3d 1080, 1091 (9th Cir.2003), quoting United States v. Rapal, 146 F.3d 661, 666 (9th Cir.1998).
VACATED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.