United States v. Howard

203 F. App'x 754
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Howard. Read the opinion of the Court — 532 F.3d 755
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided October 31, 2006·No. No. 06-2281·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Demario Antoinette Howard appeals the denial of his motion for correction of sentence. The United States agrees that plain error occurred because the judge’s oral pronouncement of sentence is not the sentence imposed in fact, and thus supports Howard’s appeal. See Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 U.S. 460, 464-65, 56 S.Ct. 760, 80 L.Ed. 1283 (1936); United States v. Tramp, 30 F.3d 1035, 1037 (8th Cir.1994).

This court reverses and remands for sentencing consistent with the alternative sentence ordered by the district court in the event that the federal sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional or partially unconstitutional. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); 8th Cir. R. 47A.

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

United States v. Howard, 203 F. App'x 754 (8th Cir. 2006).

203 F. App'x 754 (United States v. Howard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hill v. United States Ex Rel. Wampler
298 U.S. 460 (Supreme Court, 1936)
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)