United States v. Christopher Ray Plouffe

ORDER

The opinion filed on January 18, 2006, and published at 436 F.3d 1062 , is AMENDED as follows.

The first paragraph of the opinion states:

The following language is added after this first paragraph:

II”

No subsequent petitions for rehearing or for rehearing en banc may be filed by the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

OPINION

Christopher Ray Plouffe appeals his 71-month sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction on one count of assault resulting in serious bodily harm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113 (a)(6) and 1153. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I

Although neither party raised the issue of our jurisdiction to consider Plouffe’s sentencing challenge after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we requested supplemental briefing from the parties on the issue and now address it sua sponte. Before Booker was decided, the Ninth Circuit had held that we do not have jurisdiction to review a challenge to a sentence if the sentence was within the Sentencing Guidelines range. See, e.g., United States v. Reed, 914 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Pelayo-Bautista, 907 F.2d 99, 101…