Samarah

MEMORANDUM **

Husam Samarah (Appellant) appeals his conviction for carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 2119 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part and remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

When the district court considered Appellant’s carjacking conduct in sentencing him for bank fraud, Appellant was not placed in jeopardy of being punished for carjacking. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that a defendant is not punished for double jeopardy purposes when conduct is considered for sentence enhancement; rather, a defendant is punished only for the offense of conviction. See Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 402-03 , 115 S.Ct. 2199 , 132 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995) (“To the extent that the Guidelines aggravate punishment for related conduct outside the elements of the crime ..., the offender is still punished only for the fact that the present offense was carried out in a manner that warrants increased punishment, not for a different offense.... ”). We have applied the rule of Witte even where a defendant was charged with and acquitted of the “different offense” before sentencing in the “present offense.” United…