United States v. Pacheco , 159 F. App'x 495 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-4097
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RICARDO PACHECO,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District        Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham.         James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-04-250)
    Submitted:   August 29, 2005             Decided:   December 19, 2005
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
    curiam.
    Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellant.   Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela
    Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Ricardo Pacheco appeals his 76-month sentence pursuant to
    a guilty plea for reentry of a deported alien felon, in violation
    of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a), (b)(2) (2000).   His sole argument on appeal
    is that a remand is warranted because he was sentenced under a
    mandatory application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, in
    violation of United States v. Booker, 
    125 S. Ct. 738
     (2005).    We
    affirm Pacheco’s conviction, vacate the sentence, and remand for
    further proceedings.1
    Pacheco asserts that he should be resentenced in light of
    Booker because the district court sentenced him under the mandatory
    Sentencing Guidelines scheme.   In United States v. White, 
    405 F.3d 208
     (4th Cir. 2005), we held that treating the Guidelines as
    mandatory constitutes error under Booker.      See 
    id. at 216-17
    .
    Because we find error and the Government raises no objections to
    resentencing, we vacate the sentence, and remand for further
    proceedings.2   We also affirm Pacheco’s conviction.   We dispense
    1
    Just as we noted in United States v. Hughes, 
    401 F.3d 540
    ,
    545 n.4 (4th Cir. 2005), “[w]e of course offer no criticism of the
    district judge, who followed the law and procedure in effect at the
    time” of Pacheco’s sentencing.
    2
    Although the Guidelines are no longer mandatory, Booker makes
    clear that a sentencing court must still “consult [the] Guidelines
    and take them into account when sentencing.” 125 S. Ct. at 767
    (Breyer, J., opinion of the Court). On remand, the district court
    should first determine the appropriate sentencing range under the
    Guidelines, making all factual findings appropriate for that
    determination. Hughes, 
    401 F.3d at 546
    . The court should consider
    this sentencing range along with the other factors described in 18
    - 2 -
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED IN PART,
    VACATED IN PART,
    AND REMANDED
    U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), and then impose a
    sentence. Hughes, 
    401 F.3d at 546
    . If that sentence falls outside
    the Guidelines range, the court should explain its reasons for the
    departure as required by 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3553
    (c)(2) (West 2000 &
    Supp. 2005).   Hughes, 
    401 F.3d at 546
    .     The sentence must be
    “within the statutorily prescribed range and . . . reasonable.”
    
    Id. at 547
    .
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-4097

Citation Numbers: 159 F. App'x 495

Judges: Niemeyer, Michael, Motz

Filed Date: 12/19/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024