Sainez

MEMORANDUM *

Henry Sainez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress a gun obtained from a search of his car. The Government cross-appeals the district court’s decision to make two downward departures. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and therefore affirm the conviction. We remand for re-sentencing, as necessary, in light of United States v. Booker 1 and United States v. Ameline.

When Sainez finally submitted to authorities, reasonable suspicion existed for the stop. 3 Sainez’s custodial arrest was proper under California and federal law. 4 Sainez conceded that if the arrest *748 was proper, the impounding of his car, and the search, were proper as well. 5 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Sainez’s motion to suppress.

As to the Government’s cross-appeal, we review the sentencing issues for plain error. 6 We cannot determine from the record whether the district court would have imposed a materially different sentence if it had known that the Guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory, as the Supreme Court held in Booker. 7 Therefore, under Ameline, we…