Ruelas
United States v. Ruelas
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
George Michael Ruelas appeals from the district court’s judgment upon limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ame-line, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Ruelas raises the same challenges to his conviction that another panel previously decided in Nos. 02-50600, 02-50660, United States v. Ruelas, 98 Fed.Appx. 615 (9th Cir. May 5, 2004), vacated, 543 U.S. 1103 , 125 S.Ct. 1031 , 160 L.Ed.2d 1016 (2005) (remanding for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)). These issues are beyond the scope of our limited remand. See United States v. Ruelas, 412 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.2005) (affirming the conviction and granting a limited remand of the sentence). Ruelas’s conviction is therefore not open for review. See United States v. Thrasher, 483 F.3d 977, 982-83 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that, pursuant to the rule of mandate, a limited remand for a single purpose precluded consideration of other issues). We deny Ruelas’s request to reissue the prior memorandum disposition.