United States v. Bautista

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-16-2005
USA v. Bautista
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-1707
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Bautista" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 106.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/106
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 2005 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 03-1707
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
FREDY BAUTISTA,
Appellant
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 02-cr-00186-1)
District Judge: The Honorable John R. Padova
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 21, 2004
Resubmitted on October 12, 2005, after
Remand from United States Supreme Court
Before: McKEE, NYGAARD, and CHERTOFF, Circuit Judges.*
*The Honorable Michael Chertoff resigned from the Court on February 16, 2005,
and took no part in this decision. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28
U.S.C. 46(d).
(Filed: December 16, 2005)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
This matter is before us on remand by the United States Supreme Court. We
affirmed Baustista’s conviction and sentence on July 7, 2004. The Supreme Court
subsequently vacated our judgment and remanded the matter to us for further
consideration in light of its opinion in United States v. Booker, — U.S. — , 125 S.Ct.
738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
Because Bautista pleaded guilty, the sole issue raised in his original appeal
concerned his sentence, as imposed by the District Court. Now, Bautista requests that we
remand the matter to the District Court for re-sentencing in light of Booker. The
Government does not object to a remand, reserving the right to assert that, in the exercise
of discretion afforded by Booker, the District Court should re-impose the same sentence
imposed previously.
Having determined that the sentencing issues Bautista raises are best determined
by the District Court in the first instance, we will vacate that portion of our judgment that
affirmed the judgment of sentence and remand this matter to the District Court for
reconsideration and, if that court deems it appropriate, for re-sentencing in accordance
with Booker.
2
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the conviction, vacate the sentence and
remand this matter to the district court for re-sentencing.