Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Conrad Albert KROUSE, III, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-03
Citations: 140 F. App'x 684
Docket Number: No. 02-50458; D.C. No. CR-01-00225-AHS(A)
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Conrad Albert KROUSE, III, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 140
Pages: 684–684

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Conrad Albert KROUSE, III, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 02-50458.
D.C. No. CR-01-00225-AHS(A).
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 3, 2005.
USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff — Appellee.
USSA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, William J. Kopeny, Esq., William J. Kopeny & Associates, Irvine, CA, for Defendant — Appellant.
Before GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
In our prior dispositions we affirmed Krouse's conviction. United States v. Krouse, 370 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir.2004); United States v. Krouse, 100 Fed.Appx. 668, 670 (9th Cir.2004) (unpublished disposition). We then stayed the mandate to permit Krouse to raise any claims he may have under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). We grant a limited remand to allow the district court to determine "whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the [federal] sentencing guidelines were advisory." United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1074 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Additionally, we deny Krouse's petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc as moot. Krouse's conviction is affirmed in all other respects for the reasons stated in our prior dispositions. Krouse, 370 F.3d at 968; Krouse, 100 Fed. Appx. 668, 670 (9th Cir.2004).
REMANDED.