United States v. Bentley

Third Circuit

United States v. Bentley

99 F. App'x 426

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided June 2, 2004·No. No. 03-1935·Published

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

FISHER, Circuit Judge.

Tyrone Bentley claims, for the first time on this appeal, that he should not have received a two-level upward adjustment in his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2. The standard of review is plain error. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Torres, 209 F.3d 308, 313 (3d Cir.2000).

The government concedes that the sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 should not have been applied in this case, as the defendant was fleeing from armored car employees, not law enforcement officials.

The government agrees that the erroneous application of § 3C1.2 warrants a remand to permit resentencing. We will therefore vacate the judgment of sentence in this case and remand the matter for resentencing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

FISHER, Circuit Judge.

Tyrone Bentley claims, for the first time on this appeal, that he should not have received a two-level upward adjustment in his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2. The standard of review is plain error. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Torres, 209 F.3d 308, 313 (3d Cir.2000).

The government concedes that the sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 should not have been applied in this case, as the defendant was fleeing from armored car employees, not law enforcement officials.

The government agrees that the erroneous application of § 3C1.2 warrants a remand to permit resentencing. We will therefore vacate the judgment of sentence in this case and remand the matter for resentencing.

United States v. Bentley, 99 F. App'x 426 (3d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

99 F. App'x 426 (United States v. Bentley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related