United States v. Antonio Feliciano Crawford

Good Law
143 F. App'x 886·422 F.3d 1145·2005 WL 2030497·2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 18144
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 24, 200503-30263California447 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER

This case involves “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient to justify our recall of the mandate, Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 550 , 118 S.Ct. 1489 , 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998); see also Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460-61 (9th Cir.1996), because: (1) the sentencing judge expressed explicit reservations on the record about the sentence required under the previously mandatory Sentencing Guide lines; and (2) the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), foreshadowing its holding in United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), was rendered before the mandate issued. Accordingly, we recall the mandate, vacate the sentence, and remand to the district court for resentencing pursuant to Booker, United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1078-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (requiring resen-tencing where sentence was enhanced by extra-verdict findings under mandatory Guidelines if “possible to reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory”), and United States v.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.