Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-25-2005
USA v. Afzal
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-1910
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Afzal" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1429.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1429
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 04-1910
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MOHAMMAD AFZAL
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 03-cr-00753)
District Judge: Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh
Submitted Pursuant to 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.
-1-
Mohammad Afzal pled guilty to a two count information charging him in Count One
with conspiring to commit bank fraud, and in Count Two with making, uttering and
possessing counterfeit checks. The District Court sentenced Afzal, pursuant to the United
States Sentencing Guidelines, to a 44 month term of imprisonment, and $52,857.34 in total
restitution. Afzal received a two level enhancement for obstruction of justice, and a three-
level enhancement for committing the offense in count two of the information while on
release from the offense in count one. On appeal, he 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. Afzal raises no challenge as to his conviction and
accordingly has waived any argument in this regard. We will affirm the judgment of
conviction.