Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence JOU, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-19
Citations: 176 F. App'x 842
Docket Number: No. 03-10410
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lawrence JOU, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 842–843

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lawrence JOU, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-10410.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2006.
Filed April 19, 2006.
Mark N. Zanides, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Oakland, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Christopher Johns, Esq., Johns & Allyn, San Rafael, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lawrence Jou appeals from his 33-month sentence imposed upon his guilty plea to conspiracy and criminal copyright infringement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, 17 U.S.C. § 506(a), and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(a) and (b)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Jou contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it ordered restitution. This claim is foreclosed by United States v. Bussell, 414 F.3d 1048, 1060 (9th Cir.2005) (stating that district court orders of restitution are unaffected by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)).
We remand to the sentencing court for further proceedings consistent with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).
REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.