Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Guatemala MARTINEZ, aka Manuel Guatemala, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-20
Citations: 255 F. App'x 182
Docket Number: No. 06-50295
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Manuel Guatemala MARTINEZ, aka Manuel Guatemala, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 255
Pages: 182–182

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Manuel Guatemala MARTINEZ, aka Manuel Guatemala, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-50295.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 22, 2007 .
Filed Nov. 20, 2007.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Timothy J. Sea-right, Esq., Damian J. Martinez, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
George W. Buehler, Esq., Geragos & Geragos, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Manuel Guatemala Martinez appeals from the district court's order, following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), concluding that the sentence previously imposed would remain the same. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we remand.
Martinez contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and because the district court did not understand the full scope of its discretion. Because we cannot determine from the district court's statements whether "the district [court] judge properly understood the full scope of his discretion in a post-Booker world," we remand for further proceedings. Cf. United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.2006).
REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.