Vonlewis

MEMORANDUM **

Charles Vonlewis appeals from the district court’s decision that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence following a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Vonlewis contends that his sentence is unreasonable under United States v. Book er, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because the district court did not allow him to interview with a probation officer and did not articulate its consideration of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). However, our review of a district court’s decision not to resentence a defendant following a remand pursuant to Ameline is limited to whether “the district [court] properly understood the full scope of [its] discretion” under Booker. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.2006). We conclude that the record reflects that the district court “understood [its] post- Booker authority to impose a non-Guidelines sentence.” See id.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir.…