United States v. Quinones

Second Circuit

United States v. Quinones

131 F. App'x 768

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 19, 2005

DocketNo. 04-4285-CR

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 F. App'x 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-quinones-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack