U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2005

United States v. Ruelas

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided June 16, 2005 · Berzon, Kleinfeld, Wardlaw

412 F.3d 1051 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Beverly Reid O’Connell, Esq., Lizabeth A. Rhodes, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Joel Levine, Esq., Encino, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Ruelas (9th Cir. 2008)
United States v. George Michael Ruelas, United States of America v. George Michael Ruelas (9th Cir. 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and we therefore 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 remand in accordance with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 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, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).

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

It is so ORDERED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.