220 F. App'x 720

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Allen McMILLION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-30044.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*721Submitted Feb. 9, 2007 *.

Filed Feb. 16, 2007.

Marcia Good Hurd, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for PlaintiffAppellee.

David A. Duke, Esq., Law Office of David A. Duke, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: BEEZER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER **

The Government acknowledged in its letter submitted pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 28(j) that the district court did not solicit the views of counsel before it issued its order responding to our previous Ameline remand. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). “[0]n Ameline remand, a district court must obtain, or at least solicit, the views of counsel in writing before deciding whether re-sentencing is appropriate.” United States v. Montgomery, 462 F.3d 1067, 1069 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings consistent with Ameline and Montgomery.

REMANDED.

United States v. McMillion
220 F. App'x 720

Case Details

Name
United States v. McMillion
Decision Date
Feb 16, 2007
Citations

220 F. App'x 720

Jurisdiction
United States

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!