Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emilio CEJA-ZAVALA, aka Andres Daniel Ceja-Franco, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-18
Citations: 163 F. App'x 567
Docket Number: No. 04-30206
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Emilio CEJA-ZAVALA, aka Andres Daniel Ceja-Franco, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, O’SCANNLAIN and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 163
Pages: 567–568

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Emilio CEJA-ZAVALA, aka Andres Daniel Ceja-Franco, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-30206.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 9, 2006.
Decided Jan. 18, 2006.
John Joseph Lulejian, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff— Appellee.
Peggy Sue Juergens, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HUG, O’SCANNLAIN and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Emilio Ceja-Zavala appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 121-month sentence imposed for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the conviction and remand the sentence.
Ceja-Zavala contends that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary be cause had he known about the post-plea changes to sentencing law brought about by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) and United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), he would not have entered the change of plea. His contention fails. See United States v. Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2005) (stating that changes in sentencing law imposed by Booker do not render a pre-Booker guilty plea involuntary).
Nevertheless, because Ceja-Zavala was sentenced under the then-mandatory guidelines, we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with Ameline. See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, 419 F.3d 906, 916 (9th Cir.2005) (extending Ameline's limited remand procedure to non-constitutional Booker error).
The conviction is AFFIRMED and the sentence is 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.