MEMORANDUM **

Jose Milanes-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s order upon limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), concluding that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Milanes-Sanchez contends that the district court erred by not holding a resentencing hearing following this Court’s remand pursuant to Ameline. Because the district court determined that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory, Milanes-Sanchez is not entitled to a resentencing hearing. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (9th Cir. 2006); Ameline, 409 F.3d at 1085. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err.

Moreover, the record indicates that the district court understood its discretion to impose a sentence outside of the Guidelines and did not treat the Guidelines range as a presumptive sentence. See Combs, 470 F.3d at 1297.

AFFIRMED.