January 27, 2005
More on Booker from the 11th Circuit
Today in this per curiam opinion in US v. Reese, No. No. 03-13117 (11th Cir. Jan. 27, 2005), the Eleventh Circuit vacated its September 2004 decision declining to apply Blakely to the federal guidelines (discussed here). The brief two-page opinion culminates in this key conclusion:
in light of Booker, we vacate our previous opinion with respect to Reese's challenge to his sentence; we vacate the judgment of the district court with respect to the sentence; and we remand to the district court for resentencing consistent with the Supreme Court opinions in Booker.
The opinion has no additional language to guide the case on remand, and thus it will be up to the district court to pick up the Reese's pieces. (Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun.)
January 27, 2005 at 01:32 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on Booker from the 11th Circuit:
wow! i'm floored! what a progressive step for the eleventh circuit court. thank you for the information in such a timely manner. did i read right when i read that the circuit court, "in light of Booker", vacated their previous opinion with respect to Reese's challenge to his sentence? so, they sorta said they were wrong in Sep 2004? to me that's real progress. keep up the info collection, some of us really do appreciate it.
mother of a 22 year old young male in the federal
prison system for conspiracy (only 13 years left!)
Posted by: mary | Jan 27, 2005 1:51:40 PM
this is great news!! I posted last week that the 11th circuit court of appeals has a policy in place that is blocking all appeals for immediate resentencing, appeal bonds, and the like. We will all have to just wait our turns for relief.
I figured that this policy may dictate that the 11th circuit would feel that the majority of the senetences are just, and should have used the guidlines even in the post blakely/booker/fanfan era.
This gives more hope that they might be more inclined to give relief when they see appeals and tough mandatory minimum sentences
Posted by: D | Jan 27, 2005 5:06:23 PM
The Booker error here was preserved. We'll have to wait and see how the 11th Cir. analyzes unpreserved errors (likely the majority of its pending cases).
I hope the optimism in the other comments is ultimately validated but we're not quite there yet.
Posted by: Alex E. | Jan 28, 2005 12:45:40 AM