United States v. Baggett
This text of 459 F. App'x 886 (United States v. Baggett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Based upon the agreement of counsel and our review of the record, we vacate the sentences and the order of restitution imposed by the district court and remand with instructions. The Florida indictment did not charge a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in Count I, and thus there was no plea of guilty to such a crime. In addition, although the court had the authority to impose discretionary restitution as a condition of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3568(b)(2), 3583(d) and U.S.S.G. § 5E1.1, it lacked the authority to order immediate restitution.
Counsel agree that the defendant/appellant should be resentenced without regard to § 924(c). It is also agreed that the issue of restitution must be revisited under the appropriate statutes and sentencing guideline.
Convictions affirmed; sentences of imprisonment and order of restitution vacated; and, matter remanded with instructions.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
459 F. App'x 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-baggett-ca11-2012.