United States v. Mejia-Munoz

MEMORANDUM ** “Ameline provides no right for a defendant even to be present during” a hearing. United States v. Silva, 472 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir.2007). Defendant wasn’t entitled to be present at the limited remand hearing as a matter of Due Process because an Ameline remand requires only that the district court make a subjective determination about what it would have done had it known the Guidelines were advisory. It is therefore not a critical stage in the proceedings. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 , 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 doesn’t apply because an Ameline remand isn’t a “sentencing” proceeding within the meaning of that rule. Fed. R.Crim.P. 43(a)(3). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.