From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Casttllo-Castellanos

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 7, 2008
285 F. App'x 350 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 06-10516.

Submitted June 18, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed July 7, 2008.

Barbara J. Valliere, Esq., Jeffrey Finigan, Esq., USSF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

George C. Boisseau, Esq., Santa Rosa, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Susan Yvonne Illston, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-04-00077-SI.

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), Juan Alfonso Castillo-Castellanos appeals from the district court's order concluding that it would have imposed the same 86-month sentence had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Castillo-Castellanos contends that the district court erred by not resentencing him on remand. However, because we ordered a limited remand pursuant to Ameline and the district court subsequently ruled that it would not have imposed a different sentence had it known that the Guidelines were advisory, Castillo-Castellanos was not entitled to resentencing. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1071, 169 L.Ed.2d 816 (2008); see also United States v. Perez, 475 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that a district court is required to comply with this Court's mandate). We also hold that Castillo-Castellanos was not entitled to a new presentence report on remand. Cf. United States v. Silva, 472 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 201, 169 L.Ed.2d 135 (2007).

Castillo-Castellanos also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We' conclude that the sentence is reasonable in light of the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Gall v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Casttllo-Castellanos

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 7, 2008
285 F. App'x 350 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

U.S. v. Casttllo-Castellanos

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Alfonso…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 7, 2008

Citations

285 F. App'x 350 (9th Cir. 2008)