United States v. Katon

Second Circuit

United States v. Katon

138 F. App'x 363

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 7, 2005

DocketDocket No. 04-4544-CR

StatusPublished

This text of 138 F. App'x 363 (United States v. Katon) 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. Katon, 138 F. App'x 363 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Phillip J. Katon pleaded guilty to making false and fictitious statements in connection with an attempt to acquire a firearm from a federally licensed dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). Prior to sentencing, Katon filed a motion in the district court arguing that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were unconstitutional, relying on the holding of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). As the Supreme Court subsequently made clear in United States v. Booker,—U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), Katon’s sentence violated the Sixth Amendment. Because Katon preserved the objection below, we remand with instructions to vacate the judgment and re-sentence. See United States v. Fagans, 406 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.2005). Because we remand for resentencing, we need not consider whether, as Katon contends, the Supreme Court has implicitly overruled Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). That argument can be raised in the district court on remand.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Phillip J. Katon pleaded guilty to making false and fictitious statements in connection with an attempt to acquire a firearm from a federally licensed dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). Prior to sentencing, Katon filed a motion in the district court arguing that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were unconstitutional, relying on the holding of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). As the Supreme Court subsequently made clear in United States v. Booker,—U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), Katon’s sentence violated the Sixth Amendment. Because Katon preserved the objection below, we remand with instructions to vacate the judgment and re-sentence. See United States v. Fagans, 406 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.2005). Because we remand for resentencing, we need not consider whether, as Katon contends, the Supreme Court has implicitly overruled Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). That argument can be raised in the district court on remand.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 F. App'x 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-katon-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack