Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mesdrain MORFIN-MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-05
Citations: 143 F. App'x 71
Docket Number: No. 03-30393; D.C. No. CR-02-00206-ALH
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mesdrain MORFIN-MUNOZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 143
Pages: 71–72

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mesdrain MORFIN-MUNOZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-30393.
D.C. No. CR-02-00206-ALH.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.
Decided Aug. 5, 2005.
David L. Atkinson, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Harrison Stewart Latto, Law Office of Harrison S. Latto, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
ORDER and MEMORANDUM
The petition for panel rehearing is denied as moot. The Memorandum Disposition filed February 22, 2005, is WITHDRAWN and replaced with the following Memorandum Disposition:
Because appellant did not challenge his sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds in the district court, we review his sentence for plain error. Pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), we remand the case for the district court to determine whether it would have sentenced appellant differently under an advisory Guidelines system.
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.