United States v. Lopez-Zamora

141 F. App'x 601
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 4, 2005·No. No. 03-50304; D.C. No. CR-01-01918-JM·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Jose Lopez-Zamora challenges his sentence. He argues that he must be resentenced because the district court erroneously believed the sentencing guidelines categorically forbid a district court from departing due to the minor nature of the underlying felony. He also argues that reversal is required because the district court applied the sentencing guidelines as mandatory. See United States v. Booker, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We agree that the district court should determine whether “the sentence imposed would have differed materially if the district court judge were applying the Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory....” United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We therefore remand the sentence for further proceedings consistent with Ameline. Id. at 1084-85.

REMANDED.

Footnotes

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

United States v. Lopez-Zamora, 141 F. App'x 601 (9th Cir. 2005).

141 F. App'x 601 (United States v. Lopez-Zamora) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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