Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cr-00078- - M ` d 07/15/2005 Page 1 of 1 I
D. Co11n(_‘NE.N 1'l‘i\VE|~D 1
i A 03—cr—78
A Underhill, J. I
I
United States Court of Appeals A i
rea me l
SECOND CIRCUIT i
mrrmmrwt 1
Q At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
@ Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the `
City of New York, on the fl ik day of max] two thousand and tive, E
l
Present: * ' i
Hon. Dennis Jacobs, i
` l Hon. Robert D. Sack, . “
Hon. Reena Raggi, wttts 00URr G,
Circuit Judges, $9 F i I- E0 4*°.·$% E
l JUN 17 *m ui .
l e E
i United States of America, " ,.- , t.\?·¢ i
s ,96. ·I¤¢l•c\¤“ 6 {
i CGM; eln _ .
1 Appellee, p __ t . ‘ {
1. (rev: u ii
V. No. 04—3326—cr i"‘
Q Kenneth Moore, . ---_ l ig
i Defendant-Appellant p O U
zig} -·-
Defendant-Appellant moves, with the Govermnenfs consent, to remand the Eaise to"tlie district l
court to determine whether to resentence Appellant. In light ofthe Supreme Court’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 103 (2d Cir. 2005), the motion is granted and this case is remanded to the district court for
further proceedings in conformity with Crosby.
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 argument on remand or on any appeal post-
remand by not tiling a petition for rehearing of this remand order.
FOR THE COURT: `i
R · . . Macliechnie, erk
Y ll
A . M I \
SAOUG 1 A ly ‘
Btceeann B . acE< . , Qjmg Q
I | by .. ...;!//A . ' c A dw i
— — . - . _ » l-. .. · i
_ MANDRTE: li rl )»O§ i`i`i
i, e-e—e - a-e.e - ..i_. _ , _ eq - l J i`;
— r A- -e.e.. - _ C - C _ C - C RTi$i€E?$f$TT=;;?Ei;*;*?g?
yr; ;.;_;_,. _- , _.__ C __ , · r __;_;;·?%¥ "`;"“:;"£"E”`*"“°“""*"*“
j- ·e-e- e -e-a-e - ....i _ , -_` _ J -0 :;