Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

J_mé— ...... ....._..l._
= y- Case 3:00-cr-00227-SRU Document 1384 Filed 04/29/2005 ' Page 1 of3
I -I,-I . i-J? All Vi, `
""*‘* " ZU[l§ App 2q O0—cr-227
c D 2: in Underhill,].
( U. i§._i_.nl_.· _- . _
United States Court of Appeals
ron rua
SECOND CIRCUIT _
At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the day of WKIL two thousand and tive,
L
Present:
Hon. Wilfred Feinberg, M ,_<_
` Hon. Robert D. Sack, I
Hon. Robert A. Katzmann, '
. . ’··? I A gs; U _ _. , V?}
Circuit Judges. _ r=l`i‘< j, 5 ggiigg,
‘ \\ . { i
\\\ [l<8(§l '/’-/‘
_ _ "r ·'"`""?¥ a'\ *
United States ofAmer1ca, .l)//(
Appellee,
v. 02-l694—cr
Frank Estrada, ez al. _ - l
Defendants, {
Felipe Santana, also known as Omar,
Defendant—Appellant. I
Michael S. Hrllrs, counsel for Appellant, moves for permission to withdraw as counsel pursuant to
Anders v. Caldornfa, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The Government opposes the Anders motion and moves to ,
remove Hillis as Appellant’s counsel and have new counsel appointed to represent Appellant on appeal.
_ Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that the motions are denied without prejudice to renewal.
Pursuant to United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 118-20 (2d Cir. 2005), the case is remanded to the
district court for the district court to consider whether to resentence Appellant, after considering the
currently applicable statutory requirements as explicated in United States v. Booker, __U.S.___, 125`S.Ct. I
i l
I- ··
—ISSUED AS MANDATE: _
l
_ ··——-—·&}:e.-=:.-ag»:,·z<;,‘>s;,$.i=_,·=,.eg,{=_¤g,i;_s:,gr:‘1a;g aQ%&S:`¥i=5'**"*’e-=¤==F»#·==»><.F.;-.,r_,-_,_,. __ __ _ __ _ __ ri 3 rr J ri U 7 _ G H H _ 7 _ i `
g i __ .. _, , —‘~* —

·
cc·‘==>·>$—·=¤—-‘==’a¤—1»:».»ers‘rés$4é;`=‘;=3§;e,@s¤e¤=-J; **‘*’*·*#=F»#a=-¤r¤.g-.F.:—,, _. _, __ __ __ __ __ _ __ if __ i H i H V B i _ i _ i _ r - i
C ., C. , is —*—; ·~



9 |
r · — · Case 3:00-cr-00227-SRU Document 1384 Filed 04/29/2005 Page 2 of 3 _ {
738, 764 (2005), and Crosby. This Cou1t’s Clerk’s Office shall issue the mandate forthwith, pursuant
to United States v. Jacobson, l5·F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. l994). Jurisdiction over the appeal will be
automatically restored to this Court, without the need for a new notice of appeal, if the parties notify this .
Court’s Clerk’s Office within ten days ofthe district court’s decision. Appellant may avoid resentencing
by promptly notifying the district court that resentencing is not sought. ‘ i
l
. FOR THE COURT: - §
Roseann . MacKechnie, Clerk I
B ._ ___. Jeh u - _ - {
Ros . Il ° Y
by .. ~ /
"i t " a » r a --- ...... ...
. CIERK
r i l
san/nbs i _ i I I

i l
" · . ~ Case 3:00-cr-00227-SRU Document 1384 Filed 04/29/2005 I Page 3 of 3
"
.: in ·. L., ._.. _ Ip _ D. Conn. _. g
tr if l;..‘Q'Q {lj 00-cr-227
Underhill, J. i
ZUtl° " F l
United S§ates;Co_urt,reifTAppeals' A
“'*···L`* ¤itc5Ii¤‘EHiEl. `{ " E
SECOND CIRCUIT _ I
At a stated Term ofthe United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York,
. on the day of jyxlé; `two thousand and iive, `
J. ‘
Present: s
Hon. Wilfred Feinberg, .,.___ _ ‘ · {
Hon. Robert D. Sack, _ __‘_,-_ Ze. i
HOU. Robert A. Katzmam], l, an I ’ !
Circuit Judges. _ Q_ '_ *i*iDi‘? titifi {
* \‘g;t(;/hp . __ ` lf s U
~x,‘ ." , .., T .
United States of America, `
U Appellee,
I v. _ _ 02-1694-cr I
Frank Estrada, etal. l ___ - n
‘ · MIS £i.?tHD.'»>tTE, _ CONSISTING OF THE 1*1%:.5;:
_ Dcf€ndamSti&t?2ti0t4, t-this BEEN RFBCEIVED; p I
t I 0IiT*Ztt}§t1t0I=t { ) S'I‘ATt‘tMEiI~1`T- OF cases
` Felipe Santana, also known as Omar, if ORDER DATE; _ ‘ )
it CEIVED BY; .
Defendant—Appellant. _
Michael S. Hrllrs, counsel for Appellant, moves for permission to withdraw as counsel pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The Government opposes the Anders motion and moves to
remove Hillis as Appellant’s counsel and have new counsel appointed to represent Appellant on appeal.
Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that the motions are denied without prejudice to renewal.
Pursuant to United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 118-20 (2d Cir. 2005), the case is remanded to the i
district court for the district court to consider whether to resentenee Appellant, after considering the - '
currently applicable statutory requirements as explicated in United States v. Booker, _U.S._;, 125 S.Ct. l