UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4373
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DWONENRICO M. WASHINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-03-797)
Submitted: April 29, 2005 Decided: May 20, 2005
Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Parks Nolan Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, Ann Briks Walsh, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dwonenrico M. Washington pled guilty, without a plea
agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2)
(2000).* Washington was sentenced on May 5, 2004, to 110 months in
prison, followed by three years of supervised release. After
Washington filed his appeal, the Supreme Court decided United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Washington has filed a
motion to remand for resentencing in light of Booker. The
Government does not oppose the motion.
We grant Washington’s motion to remand to allow the
district court to reconsider Washington’s sentence in light of
Booker. Although the Sentencing Guidelines are no longer
mandatory, Booker makes clear that a sentencing court must still
“consult [the] Guidelines and take them into account when
sentencing.” 125 S. Ct. at 767. On remand, the district court
should first determine the appropriate sentencing range under the
Guidelines, making all factual findings appropriate for that
determination. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th
Cir. 2005) (applying Booker on plain error review). The court
should consider this sentencing range along with the other factors
described in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), and then impose a
*
Washington does not attack the voluntariness of his guilty
plea.
- 2 -
sentence. Id. If that sentence falls outside the Guidelines
range, the court should explain its reasons for the departure as
required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) (2000). Id. The sentence must
be “within the statutorily prescribed range and . . . reasonable.”
Id. at 546-47. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -