Maness

MEMORANDUM *

In these consolidated appeals, Bret F. Maness appeals pro se from the district court’s order reaffirming his sentence following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), and the district court’s order denying reconsideration. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. Maness raised an Apprendi challenge to his sentence in supplemental briefing ordered by the previous panel and therefore preserved that claim. Maness admitted possession of the Norinco MAK-90 in his testimony, however, so any Apprendi error was harmless. See Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 487-88 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

2. Maness also contends that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, because the district court did not make a finding that the perjured testimony was material, and that at sentencing, the district court violated his due process rights and the Confrontation Clause by applying sentencing enhancements that had a disproportionate impact on his sentence without…