United States v. Mark D. Rice

Tenth Circuit

United States v. Mark D. Rice

405 F.3d 1108, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 7388, 2005 WL 984374

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 2005

Docket02-6401

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 405 F.3d 1108 (United States v. Mark D. Rice) 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. Mark D. Rice, 405 F.3d 1108, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 7388, 2005 WL 984374 (10th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

Defendant/Appellant Mark D. Rice pled guilty to four counts relating to the production, transportation and possession of child pornography, and was sentenced to 262 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, and was assessed $9,216.00 in restitution. We affirmed his conviction, but reversed his sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court erroneously double-counted certain uncharged conduct in calculating his sentence under the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (“USSG”). United States v. Rice, 358 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir.2004) ("Rice I”). The Supreme Court summarily reversed and remanded our decision for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See Rice v. United States, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1028, 160 L.Ed.2d 1014 (2005). The parties have jointly requested that we remand this case for resentencing.

We accordingly VACATE our order dated April 14, 2005, directing the parties to file supplemental briefs, we REINSTATE all non-sentencing portions of our previous opinion ("Rice I”), as well as that portion of the opinion holding that the district court’s double-counting in this case is prohibited under the Guidelines, and we REMAND for resentencing 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

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

Defendant/Appellant Mark D. Rice pled guilty to four counts relating to the production, transportation and possession of child pornography, and was sentenced to 262 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, and was assessed $9,216.00 in restitution. We affirmed his conviction, but reversed his sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court erroneously double-counted certain uncharged conduct in calculating his sentence under the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (“USSG”). United States v. Rice, 358 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir.2004) ("Rice I”). The Supreme Court summarily reversed and remanded our decision for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See Rice v. United States, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1028, 160 L.Ed.2d 1014 (2005). The parties have jointly requested that we remand this case for resentencing.

We accordingly VACATE our order dated April 14, 2005, directing the parties to file supplemental briefs, we REINSTATE all non-sentencing portions of our previous opinion ("Rice I”), as well as that portion of the opinion holding that the district court’s double-counting in this case is prohibited under the Guidelines, and we REMAND for resentencing in accordance with Booker. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 F.3d 1108, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 7388, 2005 WL 984374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mark-d-rice-ca10-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack