Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernardo CARLOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-28
Citations: 146 F. App'x 933
Docket Number: No. 04-50499
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bernardo CARLOS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 933–934

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bernardo CARLOS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-50499.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Oct. 28, 2005.
U.S. Attorney, Kevin M. Mulcahy, Esq., USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Siri Shetty, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant. D.C. No. CR-03-03084DMS.
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
The panel has voted to deny appellant's petition for rehearing. Judges Silverman and Callahan have voted to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc and Judge Wallace so recommends.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.
The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied.
Because appellant was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, and appellant has requested a remand, we remand to the sentencing court to proceed pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) and United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, 419 F.3d 906, 916 (9th Cir.2005) (extending Ameline's limited remand procedure to cases involving non-constitutional Booker error).
REMANDED.