United States v. Quinones

131 F. App'x 768
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Quinones. Read the opinion of the Court — 511 F.3d 289
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided May 19, 2005·No. No. 04-4285-CR·Published

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Tomas Espinal Quinones objected in the district court, on the basis of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), to his receipt of a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i). The district court, acting pursuant to this court’s instructions in United States v. Mincey, 380 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.2004), disregarded that objection and sentenced Quinones as if the United States Sentencing Guidelines were compulsory. Because Quinones preserved his claim by objecting before the district court, he is entitled to resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See United States v. Fagans, 406 F.3d 138, 140 & n. 1 (2d Cir.2005). We accordingly remand to the district court with instructions to vacate the sentence and resentence in conformity with Booker.

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

United States v. Quinones, 131 F. App'x 768 (2d Cir. 2005).

131 F. App'x 768 (United States v. Quinones) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Andrew Fagans
406 F.3d 138 (Second Circuit, 2005)