United States v. Borra

220 F. App'x 595
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Borra. Read the opinion of the Court — 101 F. App'x 750
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 8, 2007·No. No. 03-10374·Published

Opinion

[596] MEMORANDUM *

On June 24, 2004, we affirmed the district court’s judgment in this appeal. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded our disposition for consideration in light of its subsequent decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See Borra v. United States, 543 U.S. 1110, 125 S.Ct. 1017, 160 L.Ed.2d 1039 (2005) (table).

We affirmed in our prior disposition the district court’s computation of appellant’s 57-month sentence under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. Since we cannot reliably determine whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the guidelines were advisory, we order a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005)(en banc).

REMANDED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Borra, 220 F. App'x 595 (9th Cir. 2007).

220 F. App'x 595 (United States v. Borra) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)
Borra v. United States
543 U.S. 1110 (Supreme Court, 2005)
United States v. Alfred Arnold Ameline
409 F.3d 1073 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)