United States v. Wilson

128 F. App'x 514

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: May 5, 2005
• Docket: 03-1338
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Justin C. Wilson appeals his sentence imposed following his convictions via guilty plea for conspiracy to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 and conspiracy to launder money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). This Court has previously held that the district court properly applied a leadership sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c). United States v. Wilson, 112 Fed.Appx. 497 (6th Cir.2004). On certiorari, that judgment was vacated and remanded to this Court for proceedings consistent with United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Wilson v. United States, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 1392, 161 L.Ed.2d 101 (2005).

Upon consideration, the sentence is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for resentencing pursuant to the decisions in United States v. Oliver, 397 F.3d 369 (6th Cir.2005), and United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2005). On remand, “we encourage the sentencing judge to explicitly state his reasons for applying particular Guidelines, and sentencing within the recommended Guidelines range, or in the alternative, for choosing to sentence outside that range. Such a statement will facilitate appellate review as to whether the sentence was ‘reasonable.’ ” United States v. Jones, 399 F.3d 640, 650 (6th Cir.2005); see also Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 765 (noting that appellate review of a district court sentence is for reasonableness); United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373 (6th Cir.2005) (engaging in reasonableness review, but refusing to “define rigidly at this time either the meaning of reasonableness or the procedures that a district judge must employ in sentencing post-Booker’7).

Accordingly, we VACATE the sentence and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.