Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter James HOLLER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-25
Citations: 271 F. App'x 625
Docket Number: No. 06-50077
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter James HOLLER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 625–626

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter James HOLLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50077.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 25, 2008.
Elana Shavit Artson, Esq., Becky S. Walker, Esq., Elizabeth M. Fishman, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sylvia Baiz, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Peter James Holler appeals from the district court's decision, following a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), that it would not have imposed a different sentence had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
On appeal from an Ameline remand, where the district court determined that it would not have imposed a different sentence had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory, our task is to determine "[wjhether the district [court] properly understood the full scope of [its] discretion in a post-Booker world." United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.2006). We also address any issues raised in the appellant's initial appeal that were not decided prior to the Ameline remand. See United States v. Thornton, 511 F.3d 1221, 1227 (9th Cir.2008).
In this case, we conclude that the district court understood "the full scope of [its] discretion in a post-Booker world." See Combs, 470 F.3d at 1297. We also conclude that Holler has not raised any issues that are reviewable. See id.; see also Thornton, 511 F.3d at 1227.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.