MEMORANDUM **

Cesar Zamora-Resendiz appeals his sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, imposed after he pled guilty to the transportation of *617illegal aliens and aiding and abetting in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(II). He argues that he received inadequate notice that the court intended to impose a sentence above the advisory guideline sentencing range on the grounds of under-representation of his criminal history. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a) (2004).

In Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129, 138-39, 111 S.Ct. 2182, 115 L.Ed.2d 123 (1991), the Supreme Court held that “before a district court can depart upward on a ground not identified as a ground for upward departure either in the presentence report or in a prehearing submission by the Government,” the court must “give the parties reasonable notice that it is contemplating such a ruling,” and “[t]his notice must specifically identify the ground on which the district court is contemplating an upward departure.” See also Fed. R.Crim.P. 32(h) (codifying the holding of Bums). A panel of this court has recently held that Bums notice is required post-Booker, just as it was pre-Booker. United States v. Evans-Martinez, 448 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir. 2006).

On appeal, the government concedes that the district court did not specifically notify Zamora-Resendiz that it was considering a sentence outside the advisory guidelines range. Moreover, the presentence report failed to provide the required notice. See United States v. Ramirez-Jiminez, 967 F.2d 1321, 1328 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with Evans-Martinez.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.