United States v. Smith

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-29-2005
USA v. Smith
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-4679
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Smith" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1425.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1425
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 03-4679
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
TYLER SMITH,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 03-cr-00164-1)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 17, 2004
Before: ALITO, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 29, 2005)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
In his brief, appellant waives any challenge to his conviction, instead asking that
we remand for clarification as to whether the District Court’s denial of a downward
departure was based on an exercise of discretion. However, the record, including the
prosecutor’s concessions that departure would be lawful, make it clear that the District
Court understood its authority and simply exercised its discretion not to depart when
stating that a departure was “not warranted.” We therefore lack appellate jurisdiction
over this portion of the appeal. See United States v. Denardi, 892 F.2d 269 (3d Cir.
1989).
We note that appellant also filed a post-briefing motion regarding other sentencing
issues arising from Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Having determined
that these other sentencing issues are best determined by the District Court in the first
instance, we will vacate the sentence and remand for re-sentencing in accordance with
United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).
2