Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario FLORES, aka Seal, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-06
Citations: 286 F. App'x 1000
Docket Number: No. 06-50002
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario FLORES, aka Seal, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 1000–1001

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario FLORES, aka Seal, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50002.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2008.
Filed Aug. 6, 2008.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Thomas E. Loeser, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Arthur H. Weed, Santa Barbara, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), Mario Flores appeals from the district court's order concluding that it would have imposed the same 188-month sentence had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Flores contends that he was entitled to full re-sentencing on remand. However, because this Court ordered a limited remand pursuant to Ameline and the district court subsequently ruled that it would not have imposed a different sentence had it known that the Guidelines were advisory, Flores was not entitled to resentencing. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (9th Cir.2006), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 1071, 169 L.Ed.2d 816 (2008); see also United States v. Perez, 475 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that district court is required to comply with this Court's mandate).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.