Free USCA Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

1`[1"111“"_ “““"“"—""‘“····*··;—»——————-——————————...._...........
1 · . . , \ 1 ’ .. Case 3:03-cr—O0223jl§§B Document 93 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 1 of 2 1
1 1 ¥’~;• J ’ 9 ` U UT 110/111/ @7, 1
` C.·j';,£ 1j_ters1__ 1:1,1 QL M. 1* “’ > EUS·¥??·l U3~Cl'-0223 1
1 ` I ` 1"J `''4 _ Bums,}. 1
1 United States Court of Appeals 1; 1111
1 FUR THE '"` " " 1
1 SECOND CIRCUIT 1
1 ZUU5 MAY 31 1:) 2; 51 1
At a stated Term ofthe United States Court ofAppca1j or t1·t_e__Seeond N
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, _ 1w§}’é,U UR T
1 inthe cnyernew vnrtnnnrne [31* dsyer jim. me thou li ,1¢·11»CT 1
1 1
Present: we ggym 1
Hen. Ralph 1<.. Winter, ,3g>°°“` aren 0'°4g,, 1
Hon. Sonia Sotomayor, ,5 JAN 1 Q
Hon. Barrington D. Parker, Jr. :° _ EDOS an - 1
Circuit Judges.
1 "`rgq :,1. _ V _1 1
. _ $°¤wo eww C 1
United States of Ammon, 1
Appellee. 1
1 v. _ 0+39 15-or
l 1
1 Bernabe Diaz,
Defendant-Appellant.
1
The Government moves for summary sftirmance or, in the alternative, an extension of time
to tile it responsive brief on the ments. Because all of Appellant Bcmabe Die2's claims are premised 1
on the applicability ot Blakely v. Washington, ____ U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), this Court deems 1
all other potential claims to have been abandoned. See .L¤.S'aeco v. City oj Middletown, 71 F .3d S8. 1
92 (2d Cir. 1995) {explaining that issue not raised by appellant in appellate hriet ls abandoned): Fed.
R. App. P. 28la) (setting out requirements for appellanfs lmet). Upon clue consideration, it is 1
ORDERED that the motion for summary afllmtance is GRANTED and the judgment of conviction
is AFFIRMED. See United States v. Mmcey, 330 1*.36 102, 106 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that,
"[ulnless and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise," the Federal Sentencing Guidelines continue 1
- to be fully applicable notwithstanding the Supreme Conrfs decision in Blakely and the law in this 1
Circuit remains as stated by pre-Blukegi eases). 1
1 1
1
1
CERTIFIED: 423 /05/ 1



I I; __..
I a - . ) _; I I f
( . # I ` :‘ , ` Case 3:03-cr-00223(EQB Document 93 Filed 05/31 @05 Page 2 of 2
I nj" " J
I xfhe mandate in this case will be held pending the Supreme Coun’s decisions in United
Stores v. Booker, __ U.S. __, 125 S. Cr. ll (argued Oc:. 4, 2004), and Unired Smres v. Frmfon, __ I
g U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 12 (argued Oct. 4, 2004). Should any party believe there is anccd for the district
com to exercise jurisdiction prior ro the Supreme Conrt:’s decisions, it may file :1 motion seeking g
issuance ofthe mandate in whole or Ul port. Although any petition for rehearing should be tiled in I
the normal course pursmmt to Rule 40 ofthe Federal Rules of Appellaie Procedure, me court. will
I nm. reconsider those portions or iis opinion that address Appellant 's sentence umil after che Supreme ,
C‘oun’s decisions in Becker andfunfan. In that regard, me parties will have until 14 days following
the Supreme Court's decisions ro file petitions or supplemental petitions for rehearing in light of I
Booker and Fnrfon and any other relevant case law. I
I FOR T1-IE COURT: E
Rosearm . MacKechni?lerk I
* I
W1/U I

I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
l I
‘ I
A mam C I
Res eam; B Z 'OPY I
Meiciie .hr1ie_, CLERK
by I
i user cssnx i
I-
I
umn nm I
I
I
I
I I iiiii‘ V is"WIw“rr·rr————————————-~—»—»—-ms»..mm.rmmrer-WH2-r ._.,.. ..... as rrri at I I