Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-13-2005
USA v. Morgan
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2714
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Morgan" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 858.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/858
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 2005 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-2714
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
HAROLD MORGAN,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 97-cr-00269)
District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 11, 2005
Before: ALITO and BECKER, Circuit Judges, and SHADUR, District Judge.*
(Filed: July 13, 2005 )
OPINION OF THE COURT
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
*
The Honorable Milton I. Shadur, United States District Judge for the District of
Illinois, sitting by designation.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Harold Morgan entered a plea of guilty to
counts one, three, five and seven of an eight-count indictment charging him with six
counts of distribution of methamphetamine and one count of possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of
criminal forfeiture of identified property, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853. Morgan was
sentenced to 135 months’ imprisonment, eight years’ supervised release, a $1,000 fine,
and a $200 special assessment.
Appellant challenges his sentence under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. —, 125
S. Ct. 738 (2005). Having determined that the sentencing issues appellant raises are best
determined by the District Court in the first instance, we will vacate the sentence and
remand for resentencing in accordance with Booker. See United States v. Davis, 407 F.3d
162 (3d Cir. 2005) (en banc).