Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-25-2003
USA v. Fuentes
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket 01-4338
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Fuentes" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 722.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/722
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 01-4338
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
LUIS FUENTES
a/k/a
LUIS CATANO
a/k/a
LOUIE
a/k/a
LUISITO
Luis Fuentes,
Appellant
__________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 94-cr-00192-14)
District Judge: Honorable Herbert J. Hutton
_______________________________________
Submitted March 13, 2003
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
Before: BECKER, Chief Judge, Rendell and Ambro
Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 25, 2003)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
BECKER, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal by defendant Luis Fuentes from an order revoking his supervised
release. Fuentes argues that the order should be revoked and the consequent sentence be
revisited because the District Court erred in failing to recognize its discretion to impose a
concurrent sentence for a violation of supervised release under United States Sentencing
Guidelines Section 7B1.3(f). In response, the government states (in its brief) that
[i]t is unclear from the record whether the district court[,] in imposing a
sentence for a violation of supervised release which was consecutive to a
term for the offense which gave rise to the violation, understood its
discretion to impose a concurrent sentence. This, this Court may wish to
remand the matter for clarification of the District Court’s reasoning.
Appellee’s Brief at 7.
The government then argues, however, that: (1) the sentence for violation of
supervised release may be affirmed on the present record because Fuentes did not object at
sentencing to the imposition of a consecutive sentence; (2) review is therefore for plain
error; (3) there was none; and (4) this Court has discretion whether to correct the error.
However, we think that the better course is to remand for clarification. Accordingly the
judgment of sentence will be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.
2
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Edward R. Becker
Chief Judge
3