UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5074
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CORY SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CR-
04-264-RDB)
Submitted: March 16, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Paresh S. Patel, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland; Jeffrey Earl Risberg,
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellant. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Tamera
Lynn Fine, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Cory Scott pled guilty to possession of a firearm after
being convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2000). The district court sentenced him on December 2, 2004, over
his objection based on Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531
(2004), to a forty-six month term of imprisonment to be followed by
three years of supervised release. After Scott filed his notice of
appeal, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 125 S.
Ct. 738 (2005). Scott has filed a motion for an expedited remand
of this case to the district court for that court to implement the
thirty-month alternative sentence announced by the court in
accordance with our decision in United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d
426 (4th Cir. 2004) (order), opinion issued by 381 F.3d 316, 353-54
(4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. granted and judgment vacated, 125
S. Ct. 1051 (2005).*
We grant Scott’s motion for remand to allow the district
court to reconsider Scott’s sentence in light of the Booker
decision. Scott states in his motion that the sentencing issue
raised in the motion is the only issue he would pursue on appeal.
Therefore, we affirm his conviction, vacate the sentence imposed by
the district court, and remand for reconsideration of the sentence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
The Government does not oppose Scott’s motion.
- 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
- 3 -