Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 64.6 kB
Pages: 2
Date: September 27, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 433 Words, 2,736 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/9067/1412.pdf

Download USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut ( 64.6 kB)


Preview USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:00-cr-00227-SRU ume 141 _ _, Fi led 09/21/2005 Page 1 of 2
` ‘ A y Y 1aa A *1 i

D. Conn. (REW HN/E rx)
‘ 00-cr—227
_ Underhill, J. p
United States Court of Appeals i
ron me .
SECOND CIRCUIT
_ . At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second _ l
Crrcurt, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley S i City of New York, on the [é+i\ day of Autos? two thousand and rife, ng ·
! i .. .‘ cm .
Present: Q _ —. rm i
= Hon. Robert A. Katzmann, A;} —· Q3;-;_· E
gon. Richard C. Wesley, gg-ES couwéf "‘ g
on. Peter W. Hall, ((9 FILEQ _ 4'A U? I
g Circuit Judges. § AUG I G A e QQ
United States of America Jiggn a` ““‘l""°“ L
· C U\ I
. Appellee, p GND cinc
Frank l3strada, et al., ()3·-1776-;;;-
· Defendants,
- and ·-
i
Hector Gonzalez, a.k.a. "June Bug,"
Defendant—Appellant. i
The Government moves to remand the case to the district court to determine whether to i
resentence Appellant Hector Gonzalez. In light of the Supreme C0urt’s decision in United States v
Booker, -—- U.S.--- 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and this Court’s decision in United States v Crosby, 397 F.3d t
103 (2d Cir. 2005), the motion is granted and this case is remanded to the district court for tiuther L
proceedings in conformity with Crosby. 5 t
Although we do not pass on the merits ofthe claim, the district court is instructed to consider in
the first instance Gonza1ez’s claim that he should have been granted a downward departure or I
adjustment, as opposed to "credit," for the discharged portion of his sentence in his related case. i
Any appeal taken from the district court’s decision on remand can be initiated only by tiling a `
new notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3, 4 (b). A party will not waive or forfeit any appropriate l .
3
. n s. · ,... ,i;_iI,;e ...t .
·· K)- JO i
!
i‘t5 ‘ 5 5

. , Case 3:00-cr-00227-S1`FÂ¥U "Document 1412 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 2 of 2 I
1
E 1
i argument on remand or on any appeal post—rema11d by not filing a petition for rehearing of thiaremand
OI' C1'.
A , ' ,__¢ ·»~- Roseau = ac · hmc, Clcf
Rcseaym : . GLERK · 1 / “ _ 1
.1 www E"' By: _ _ -· ;· ,4;-4 1 } ., _- ’ · / / 1
bY / 1 p 1 _1 1.1. .1-11 - 1e-.. Oliva Gmge,Depuw Mk 1 1
` ` ,1...-...,,,.,...»-..........·1.·.•»•x• 1
lr 1
L~ ` i
1
1
1
1
· -.-. < ‘-`.1. 11 - - ` . ' an h l 1
1
.....L_................—