Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kellen Lamon JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kellen Lamon Johnson, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-18
Citations: 227 F. App'x 674
Docket Number: Nos. 06-30358, 06-30367
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kellen Lamon JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kellen Lamon Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 674–674

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kellen Lamon JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kellen Lamon Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 06-30358, 06-30367.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 18, 2007.
USGF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Wendy L. Holton, Esq., Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kellen Lamon Johnson appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and exporting firearms without a license, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 846, and 22 U.S.C. § 2778(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Johnson contends that the district court erred by concluding that it could not apply the safety valve statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), in light of the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We agree, and we vacate the sentence and remand for further proceedings consistent with United States v. Cardenas-Juarez, 469 F.3d 1331, 1335 (9th Cir.2006).
VACATED and REMLANDED.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).