
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Hector Rodrigo SOTO, Defendant—Appellant.
    Nos. 04-50233, 04-50234.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 21, 2005.
    
    Decided Oct. 25, 2005.
    Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Donald F. Gaffney, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, Steven S. Lubliner, Law Offices of Steven S. Lubliner, Petaluma, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Soto’s sentence violates United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because the district court operated under the belief that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are mandatory, rather than advisory. Because Soto did not challenge his sentence on this ground in the district court, we grant a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). See also United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, 419 F.3d 906, - (9th Cir.2005) (holding that “defendants are entitled to limited remands in all pending direct criminal appeals involving unpreserved Booker error, whether constitutional or nonconstitutional.”).

REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     