United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. George Michael Ruelas, Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. George Michael Ruelas, Defendant-appellee, 412 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2005)
Annotate this CaseBeverly 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.
Before KLEINFELD, WARDLAW, and 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, 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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
