United States v. Ruelas

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 02-50600 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v.  CR-99-01363-CAS Central District GEORGE MICHAEL RUELAS, Defendant-Appellant. of California,  Los Angeles

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 02-50660 Plaintiff-Appellant, v.  D.C. No. CR-99-01363-CAS GEORGE MICHAEL RUELAS, ORDER Defendant-Appellee.  Filed June 16, 2005

Before: Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Upon remand from the United States Supreme Court, we have reconsidered this case in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and we there- fore order that the memorandum disposition filed on May 5, 2004 be amended as follows:

Page 2, line 9: Delete the phrase “and we affirm” from the sentence beginning with “We have jurisdiction . . . .” Add a new sentence stating, “We affirm Ruelas’s conviction, and

7191 7192 UNITED STATES v. RUELAS remand in accordance with United States v. Ameline, No. 02- 30326, slip op. at 6368-71 (9th Cir. June 1, 2005) (en banc).

Page 8, line 10: Insert a new section six, entitled “Sixth Amendment Error,” followed by the following paragraph:

Because Ruelas did not challenge his sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds in the district court, we grant a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, No. 02-30326, slip op. at 6368-71 (9th Cir. June 1, 2005) (en banc).

Last line of the disposition: Replace “AFFIRMED” with “AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED”

It is so ORDERED. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2005 Thomson/West.