United States v. Jardine

Tenth Circuit

United States v. Jardine

406 F.3d 1261, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8398, 2005 WL 1120323

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMay 12, 2005

Docket02-8110

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 406 F.3d 1261 (United States v. Jardine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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. Jardine, 406 F.3d 1261, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8398, 2005 WL 1120323 (10th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER ON REMAND

TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted Andy Jardine of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The pre-sentence report (PSR) recommended several enhancements to Jardine’s sentence, to which he objected on factual and constitutional grounds. The district court overruled his objections and ultimately sentenced Jar-dine to 108 months imprisonment.

Jardine fñed a timely appeal with this court alleging the sentence violated his constitutional rights. We affirmed Jar-dine’s sentence. See United States v. Jardine, 364 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir.2004). Jardine then timely filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States asserting his sentence violated his constitutional rights. After the Court decided United States v. Booker, — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), it granted the writ and remanded to this court for further consideration. See Jardine v. United States, — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 1024, 160 L.Ed.2d 1008 (2005). As a result, we requested supplemental briefing in light of Booker.

Jardine requests that we remand for re-sentencing and the government concedes the existence of constitutional error in this case and urges us to remand to the district court for re-sentencing in accordance with Booker. Accordingly, we REINSTATE our previous opinion except for the portion affirming Jardine’s sentence, and REMAND for re-sentencing in accordance with Booker. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

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

ORDER ON REMAND

TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted Andy Jardine of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The pre-sentence report (PSR) recommended several enhancements to Jardine’s sentence, to which he objected on factual and constitutional grounds. The district court overruled his objections and ultimately sentenced Jar-dine to 108 months imprisonment.

Jardine fñed a timely appeal with this court alleging the sentence violated his constitutional rights. We affirmed Jar-dine’s sentence. See United States v. Jardine, 364 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir.2004). Jardine then timely filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States asserting his sentence violated his constitutional rights. After the Court decided United States v. Booker, — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), it granted the writ and remanded to this court for further consideration. See Jardine v. United States, — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 1024, 160 L.Ed.2d 1008 (2005). As a result, we requested supplemental briefing in light of Booker.

Jardine requests that we remand for re-sentencing and the government concedes the existence of constitutional error in this case and urges us to remand to the district court for re-sentencing in accordance with Booker. Accordingly, we REINSTATE our previous opinion except for the portion affirming Jardine’s sentence, and REMAND for re-sentencing in accordance with Booker. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 F.3d 1261, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8398, 2005 WL 1120323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jardine-ca10-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack