United States v. Riggs
This text of United States v. Riggs (United States v. Riggs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
PUBLISHED Filed: 6/3/05
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ANDRE E. RIGGS,
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER
This court previously reversed the district court’s grant
of a downward departure to Andre Riggs based on his diminished
mental capacity under § 5K2.13 of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines. United States v. Riggs, 370 F.3d 382 (4th Cir.
2004). We held that Riggs was ineligible for the downward
departure because the facts and circumstances of his offense
indicated a need to protect the public and involved a serious
threat of violence under § 5K2.13(2). Id. at 386-87. We
vacated his sentence and remanded the case for resentencing.
Id. at 387. Judge Duncan dissented. Id. at 387-92. The
Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari, vacated our decision, and remanded for reconsideration in light of United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). See Riggs v. United
States, 125 S. Ct. 1015 (2005). Upon further consideration, we
conclude that Booker does not alter our analysis of the downward
departure issue. Accordingly, we reinstate our prior opinion
reversing the district court’s grant of a downward departure and
remanding the case for resentencing.
Although the Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory,
Booker makes clear that a sentencing court must still "consult
[the] Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing."
125 S. Ct. at 767. On remand, the district court should first
determine the appropriate sentencing range under the Guidelines,
making all factual findings appropriate for that determination.
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). The
court should consider this sentencing range along with the other
factors described in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and then impose a
sentence. Id. If that sentence falls outside the Guidelines
range, the court should explain its reasons for the departure,
as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). Id. The sentence must
be "within the statutorily prescribed range and . . .
reasonable." Id. at 547.
Entered at the direction of Judge Shedd, with the
concurrence of Judge Niemeyer and Judge Duncan.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Riggs, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-riggs-ca4-2005.