Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-8-2005
USA v. Stanton
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2513
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Stanton" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1049.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1049
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-2513
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KEVIN JEFFREY STANTON,
Appellant
On Appeal From the United States
District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. Action No. 03-cr-00209)
District Judge: Hon. James F. McClure, Jr.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 7, 2005
BEFORE: AMBRO, STAPLETON and ALARCON,*
Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 8, 2005 )
*Hon. Arthur L. Alarcon, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting
by designation.
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Kevin Stanton pled guilty to escape from
federal custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751. He challenges his sentence based on
United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). In accordance with circuit precedent, we
will affirm his conviction, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing in accordance
with Booker. See United States v. Davis, 2005 WL 976941 (3d Cir. Apr. 28, 2005).
We will not, however, direct that Stanton be resentenced by a different United
States District Court judge as he requests. His request is premised on his contention that
the government breached the plea agreement at his sentencing. We find no breach.
The plea agreement provided:
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania recognizes that the facts relating to defendant’s unlawful
departure from custody are unusual and may fall “outside the heartland of
cases” relating to unlawful departure from custody. These facts may justify
a downward departure from the otherwise applicable Sentencing
Guidelines. The failure of the Court to find that the defendant is entitled to
a downward departure shall not be a basis to void this plea agreement.
App. at 36. Like the District Court, we find that nothing occurring at Stanton’s
arraignment amended this provision. See App. at 54. Accordingly, there was no promise
2
by the government not to oppose Stanton’s motion for a downward departure.
The judgment of the District Court will be vacated, and this matter will be
remanded for resentencing under United States v. Booker.
3