Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-25-2005
USA v. Alvarez
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-3959
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Alvarez" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1432.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1432
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 03-3959
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MAICOL ALVAREZ
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 01-cr-00363-16)
District Judge: Honorable Berle M. Schiller
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
February 10, 2005
Before: BARRY, FUENTES, and VAN ANTWERPEN,
Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 25, 2005)
____
OPINION OF THE COURT
FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
Maicol Alvarez challenges his sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and crack
cocaine. He argues that the downward departure for his cooperation is not sufficiently
significant, that the District Court failed to consider all relevant factors in making the
departure, that the District Court failed to consider one of his departure requests, that the
District Court made an arithmetical error in calculating his sentence, and that he is entitled
to resentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).
Having determined that issues with respect to Booker are best determined by the
District Court in the first instance, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing in
accordance with that opinion. Because we vacate the sentence, we do not reach Alvarez’s
non-Booker sentencing challenges. We note, however, that any challenge to the conviction
has been waived, and we therefore affirm the conviction.
2