United States v. Thompson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4049
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SANDRA BANKS THOMPSON,
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-03-454)
Submitted: April 20, 2005 Decided: May 3, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Marilyn Gerk Ozer, MASSENGALE & OZER, Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Sandra
Jane Hairston, Lawrence Patrick Auld, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sandra Banks Thompson, indicted with several
codefendants, pled guilty on February 3, 2004, to conspiracy to
commit loan, mail, wire, and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 371 (2000). On December 28, 2004, the district court sentenced
Thompson, over her objection based on Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.
Ct. 2531 (2004), to twenty-six months of imprisonment to be
followed by three years of supervised release. The district court
also specified an alternative sentence of probation pursuant to
this court’s recommendation in United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d
426 (4th Cir. 2004) (order), opinion issued by 381 F.3d 316 (4th
Cir. 2004) (en banc), vacated, 125 S. Ct. 1051 (2005).
Thompson appealed, challenging her sentence under
Blakely. On January 12, 2005, the Supreme Court in United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), applied the reasoning in
Blakely to the federal sentencing guidelines.
Thompson now moves for an expedited remand of her case to
the district court to allow implementation of the alternative
sentence previously announced by the district court.1 The
Government opposes both motions; those of Thompson’s codefendants
who have responded to the motions have no objection.
1
Thompson also moves for severance from her codefendants. We
previously granted this motion by separate order.
- 2 -
We conclude that Thompson is entitled to be resentenced
under Booker, as the Government concedes. As Thompson raises no
other issues on appeal, we affirm her conviction and vacate the
sentence imposed by the district court. We grant the motion for
remand, having expedited its consideration to the extent
practicable given the court’s docket.2 On remand, the district
court shall reconsider Thompson’s sentence in light of Booker. We
dispense 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
2
We decline Thompson’s request to direct the district court
to implement the alternative sentence previously announced.
- 3 -