United States v. Fourquet

Second Circuit

United States v. Fourquet

117 F. App'x 166

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 29, 2004

DocketNo. 04-1995

StatusPublished

This text of 117 F. App'x 166 (United States v. Fourquet) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Fourquet, 117 F. App'x 166 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the District Court’s judgment be AFFIRMED.

[167]*167We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of appellate issues and hold as follows.

All of defendant-appellant Nelson Fourquet’s arguments are made pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). The mandate in this ease, therefore, will be held pending the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 11, 159 L.Ed.2d 838, and United States v. Fanfan, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 12, 159 L.Ed.2d 838 (2004). Should any party believe there is a need for the district court to exercise jurisdiction prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, it may file a motion seeking issuance of the mandate in whole or in part. Although any petition for rehearing should be filed in the normal course pursuant to Rule 40 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court will not reconsider those portions of its order that address defendant’s sentence until after the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker and Fanfan. In that regard, the parties will have until 14 days following the Supreme Court’s decision to file supplemental petitions for rehearing in light of Booker and Fanfan.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the District Court’s judgment be AFFIRMED.

[167]*167We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of appellate issues and hold as follows.

All of defendant-appellant Nelson Fourquet’s arguments are made pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). The mandate in this ease, therefore, will be held pending the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 11, 159 L.Ed.2d 838, and United States v. Fanfan, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 12, 159 L.Ed.2d 838 (2004). Should any party believe there is a need for the district court to exercise jurisdiction prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, it may file a motion seeking issuance of the mandate in whole or in part. Although any petition for rehearing should be filed in the normal course pursuant to Rule 40 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court will not reconsider those portions of its order that address defendant’s sentence until after the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker and Fanfan. In that regard, the parties will have until 14 days following the Supreme Court’s decision to file supplemental petitions for rehearing in light of Booker and Fanfan.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 F. App'x 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-fourquet-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack