Maiben

MEMORANDUM *

A jury convicted Oliver Maiben and Aniefiok James of numerous counts of conspiracy, loan fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. Maiben asserts that the district court erred by permitting the Government to introduce evidence at trial of his prior felony conviction. In addition, Defendants appeal various aspects of their resulting sentences. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm the district court’s admission of Maiben’s prior conviction. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker 1 and our subsequent decision in United States v. Ameline, 2 we remand for a determination of whether the district court would have imposed a materially different sentence if it had known that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here.

The district court did not abuse its discretion 3 by allowing the Government to introduce evidence of Maiben’s prior con *191 viction for perjury. Maiben conceded the admissibility of his prior conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) at the motions hearing and thus waived the issue. 4 The district…