Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Viery CARRENO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-19
Citations: 163 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 04-50042
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Viery CARRENO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 163
Pages: 599–600

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Viery CARRENO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-50042.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 9, 2006.
Decided Jan. 19, 2006.
Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Terri K. Flynn, Esq. Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, James H. Locklin, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Viery Carreno appeals the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
Carreno's only contention on appeal is that the district court erred by applying the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory. Because we cannot reliably determine from the record whether any error in the imposition of the sentence under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines was harmless, we remand to the sentencing court to answer that question, and to proceed pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, 419 F.3d 906, 916 (9th Cir.2005).
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.