
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Karen Jean FREYLING, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-10268.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 4, 2011.
    David L. Gappa, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, Matthew D. Segal, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Carolyn M. Wiggin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Karen Jean Freyling appeals from the 121-month sentence imposed following her jury-trial conviction for conspiracy, fraud, smuggling, and various other offenses related to the operation of a business that sold unauthorized DVDs over the Internet, as well as for Social Security fraud. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Freyling contends that when the district court modified her advisory Sentencing Guidelines range at the sentencing hearing of her co-defendant, she was denied: (1) her right under Fed.R.Crim.P. 43 to be present at sentencing, and (2) her Sixth Amendment right to counsel. We agree and conclude that remand is necessary. See United States v. Berger, 473 F.3d 1080, 1094 (9th Cir.2007); United States v. Hamilton, 391 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2004).

The government does not oppose a remand but requests that we limit its scope to allow the district court merely to clarify which Guidelines range it relied upon in choosing the 121-month term of imprisonment. We reject such a limitation; however, remand shall be limited to consideration of the issues raised in this appeal.

Our resolution of these issues renders it unnecessary to resolve Freyling’s remaining contentions.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     