Sandoval-Barajas

MEMORANDUM **

This case is before us for the second time. In this appeal, we must decide whether the district court exceeded the scope of our previous remand, and if the district court plainly erred by enhancing Ramon Sandoval-Barajas’s sentence on the basis of a prior aggravated felony that had not been alleged in the indictment or proved at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and we affirm.

Sandoval-Barajas initially appealed his sentence, claiming that his previous Washington state conviction for being an alien in possession of a firearm was not an aggravated felony for federal sentencing purposes. We agreed, and remanded his case to the district court, stating: “Because Sandoval-Barajas’s Washington state conviction was not an aggravated felony for federal sentencing purposes, this case is REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.” See United States v. Sandoval-Barajas, 206 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir.2000).

This was a general, not a limited, remand. See, e.g., United States v. Washington, 172 F.3d 1116, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 1999); United States v. Allen, 153 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Pimentel, 34 F.3d 799, 800 (9th…