Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto CRUZ-AYON, aka Alberto Aguinaga-Ceja, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-16
Citations: 218 F. App'x 619
Docket Number: No. 06-10084
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto CRUZ-AYON, aka Alberto Aguinaga-Ceja, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 619–619

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto CRUZ-AYON, aka Alberto Aguinaga-Ceja, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10084.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 8, 2007 .
Filed Jan. 16, 2007.
R. Don Gifford, II, USRE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Cynthia S. Hahn, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, 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
Roberto Cruz-Ayon appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate Cruz-Ayon's sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing.
Defendants who, like Cruz-Ayon, preserved a constitutional objection to mandatory Guidelines sentencing are entitled to full resentencing rather than a limited Ameline remand, unless the government can show error was harmless. United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1097 (9th Cir.2006). Because we cannot say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we vacate Cruz-Ayon's sentence and remand for resentencing. See id. We express no opinion as to the merits of the district court's prior sentencing decisions.
The government's motion to strike Cruz-Ayon's reply brief is hereby denied.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.