United States v. Snape

128 F. App'x 175
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedMarch 16, 2005
DocketNo. 03-1249-CR
StatusPublished

This text of 128 F. App'x 175 (United States v. Snape) 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. Snape, 128 F. App'x 175 (2d Cir. 2005).

Opinion

[176]*176 SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the case is hereby REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and this Court’s decision in United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.2005), this case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with Crosby.

The disposition in the summary order previously issued in connection with this appeal is hereby made part of this order and is fully effective, except to the extent that it is inconsistent with the present remand in conformity with Crosby.

Any appeal taken from the District Court following this remand and resen-tencing, if it occurs, can be initiated only by filing a new notice of appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 3, 4(b).

A party will not waive or forfeit any appropriate argument on remand or on any appeal post-remand by not filing a petition for rehearing of this remand order. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

For the reasons set forth above, the case is hereby REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.

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

Related

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Jerome Crosby
397 F.3d 103 (Second Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 F. App'x 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-snape-ca2-2005.