United States v. Bentley ( 2004 )

Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-2-2004
USA v. Bentley
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-1935
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Bentley" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 631.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/631
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 03-1935
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
TYRONE BENTLEY,
a/k/a TYRONE HARRIS
Tyrone Bentley,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 97-cr-00445)
District Judge: The Honorable Stewart Dalzell
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 28, 2004
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, FISHER and ALARCÓN,* Circuit Judges.
(Filed June 2, 2004)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
*
The Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, Senior Judge, United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
Tyrone Bentley claims, for the first time on this appeal, that he should not have
received a two-level upward adjustment in his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2.
The standard of review is plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Torres, 209
F.3d 308, 313 (3d Cir. 2000).
The government concedes that the sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 3C1.2 should not have been applied in this case, as the defendant was fleeing from
armored car employees, not law enforcement officials.
The government agrees that the erroneous application of § 3C1.2 warrants a
remand to permit resentencing. We will therefore vacate the judgment of sentence in this
case and remand the matter for resentencing.
________________________
2