United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 13, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50663
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LARRY RANDOLF DELANCEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:04-CR-238-ALL
--------------------
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Larry Randolf Delancey appeals his life sentence following
his jury-trial conviction for being a felon in possession of a
firearm. Delancey argues that his life sentence was unreasonable
and complains that the district court failed to provide reasons
for imposing that particular sentence. Because Delancey did not
object to the life sentence or the fact that the court upwardly
departed, his arguments are reviewed for plain error. See United
States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 436 (5th Cir. 2006).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-50663
-2-
Pursuant to Booker, this court ultimately determines whether
the sentence imposed under the advisory guidelines was
reasonable. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 261-62 (2005);
United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 706 (5th Cir. 2006). The
sentencing court’s factual findings related to sentencing are
accepted unless clearly erroneous; the sentencing court’s
application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo. Smith,
440 F.3d at 706.
In this case, the district court did not indicate that it
was imposing sentence by departing upward from the guideline
sentencing range or that the departure was one provided by the
Guidelines. The sentence therefore was a “non-Guideline
sentence.” Id. at 708 & n.3.
In the event that the court imposes a non-guideline
sentence, the “district court must more thoroughly articulate its
reasons . . . than when it imposes a sentence under authority of
the Sentencing Guidelines.” Id. at 707. “Such reasons are
essential to permit this court to review the sentence for
reasonableness as directed by Booker.” United States v. Hardin,
437 F.3d 463, 470-71 (5th Cir. 2006).
Here, the district court failed to state any reasons for the
departure. Thus, this court cannot conduct a meaningful review
of the sentence. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the
district court for the limited purpose of assignment of reasons
in accordance with Smith and Hardin. Following the district
court’s assignment of reasons, the case should be returned to
No. 05-50663
-3-
this court. This court retains jurisdiction of the appeal during
the pendency of the limited remand. See Wheeler v. City of
Columbus, 686 F.2d 1144, 1154 (5th Cir. 1982).
LIMITED REMAND.