United States v. Maldonado

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-22-2005
USA v. Maldonado
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-1516
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Maldonado" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 793.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/793
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 04-1516
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ROBERTO MALDONADO
Appellant.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 03-cr-00178-1)
District Judge: Honorable Terrence F. McVerry
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on 11/15/04
Before: ROTH, SMITH, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed July 22, 2005)
OPINION OF THE COURT
ROTH, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by Roberto Maldonado who was convicted of conspiracy to
distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, pursuant
to a plea agreement in which the Government promised to file a United States Sentencing
Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) § 5(k) motion requesting a reduction in Maldonado’s offense level,
based on substantial assistance. The District Court granted the government’s § 5(k)
motion but refused to grant defendant’s request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.2(b). The District Court found that Maldonado’s activities rose above that of a
minor participant. Maldonado did not appeal his conviction but has appealed his sentence
based on the District Court’s refusal to grant him relief under § 3B1.2(b). Subsequent to
briefing before this court on the merits of the sentencing guidelines issue, the United
States Supreme Court issued United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). In
subsequent briefing, Maldonado has additionally sought resentencing based on Booker.
The Booker issue was briefed by the parties. For the reasons explained below, we will
affirm the conviction, vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing under Booker.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Jurisdiction was conferred on the District Court by 18 U.S.C. § 3231. A timely
notice of appeal was filed. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §1291 and 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742.
A defendant’s Booker claim, asserted for the first time on appeal, is subject to
2
plain error review. United States v. Davis, 407 F.3d 162, 164-65 (3d Cir. 2005) (en
banc).
DISCUSSION
Where, as here, the District Court imposed sentence and treated the “Guidelines as
mandatory rather than advisory,” defendant’s claim survives scrutiny under plain error
review. Id. at 164. In these circumstances, “we will decide claims of error related to the
conviction, vacate the sentence, and remand for consideration of the appropriate sentence
by the District Court in the first instance.” Id. at 166. We do not address Maldonado’s
§ 3B1.2(b) claim because any such decision on our part might very well be rendered
unnecessary by resentencing under Booker. See, e.g., United States v. Urban, 404 F.3d
754, 783 n.11 (3d Cir. 2005) (“Appellants O’Malley and Tursi also argue that the District
Court committed a sentencing error in fixing their base offense level under the sentencing
guidelines for the RICO convictions. Because we are vacating O’Malley’s and Tursi’s
sentences and remanding to the District Court for resentencing under Booker, we will not
address this particular challenge to their sentences here.”).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, we will affirm the conviction, vacate the sentence
and remand for resentencing under Booker.
3