Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfred J. KOONIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-11
Citations: 234 F. App'x 761
Docket Number: No. 05-50977
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alfred J. KOONIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 761–762

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alfred J. KOONIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50977.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2007 .
Filed July 11, 2007.
Lawrence E. Spong, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Leo Branton, Jr., Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BRIGHT , BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alfred J. Koonin appeals the district court's judgment following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We affirm.
Koonin first argues that his original sentence was vacated by the Supreme Court, and that accordingly, on remand, the district court resentenced him in absentia. We reject this argument. The Supreme Court did not disturb Koonin's original sentence.
Koonin's remaining arguments are foreclosed by our recent decisions in United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294 (9th Cir. 2006) and United States v. Silva, 472 F.3d 683 (9th Cir.2007). First, Koonin had no right to be present at the first phase of the Ameline remand procedure. Silva, 472 F.3d at 686. Second, the district court provided an appropriate explanation for its decision not to resentence Koonin. See Combs, 470 F.3d at 1296-97. Finally, given the procedural posture of this case, Koonin's challenge to the reasonableness of his overall sentence is not properly before us. Id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. In making this determination, we note that at no time during his first appeal to this court did Koonin challenge the reasonableness of his sentence. See Combs, 470 F.3d at 1295.