United States v. 2005-06-16 | 02-50600 | USA VRUELAS | precedential | 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 DistrictGEORGE MICHAEL RUELAS, of California,Defendant-Appellant. Los Angeles

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 02-50660
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
v.  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

-- 1 of 4 --

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.
7192 UNITED STATES v. RUELAS

-- 2 of 4 --

-- 3 of 4 --

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.

-- 4 of 4 --