UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4989
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARLOS RIVERA-CRUZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CR-03-286)
Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: April 18, 2005
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Edward H. Weis, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner,
United States Attorney, Karen B. George, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Rivera-Cruz pled guilty to one count of making a
false statement in an application for a passport, in violation of
18 U.S.C.A. § 1542 (West Supp. 2004). On October 29, 2004, the
district court sentenced Rivera-Cruz, over his objection based upon
Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), to a fourteen-month
term of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised
release. After Rivera-Cruz filed his notice of appeal, the Supreme
Court decided United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The
Government and Rivera-Cruz have filed a joint motion to remand for
resentencing in light of the Booker decision.
We grant the motion for remand to allow the district
court to reconsider Rivera-Cruz’s sentence in light of the Booker
decision. Rivera-Cruz’s formal brief on appeal reveals that the
applicability of Booker is the only issue that he wishes to 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 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
- 2 -