Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-29-2006
USA v. Thomas
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2579
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Thomas" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1372.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1372
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 2006 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
Case No. 04-2579
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
HASSAN THOMAS,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 03-cr-00062-2)
District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 25, 2006
Before: RENDELL and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges,
and GILES *, District Judge
(Filed March 29, 2006)
OPINION OF THE COURT
________________________
* Honorable James T. Giles, Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Hassan Thomas raises a challenge based on United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.
738 (2005), to the sentence he received following his guilty plea on charges of
distributing an unspecified quantity of crack cocaine. He was sentenced to 176 months
after the District Judge found that the proper drug amount for sentencing purposes was
between 50 and 150 grams. Because a defendant convicted on a drug offense cannot be
sentenced until a drug amount is determined, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2D1.1, Thomas’s guilty plea alone did not support any sentence. Thus, the amount
determined by the District Court was necessarily a fact that enhanced Thomas’s sentence
beyond the “maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty.” Booker,
125 S. Ct. at 756. After Booker, such facts cannot be found by the District Judge, but
must be admitted by the defendant or made by a jury. Id. Accordingly, we will vacate
Thomas’s sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with Booker. See United
States v. Davis, 407 F.3d 162, 164 (3d Cir. 2005) (en banc).
2