Case ID: f-appx_127/html/0109-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Courtney Edward COOPER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-4773.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 8, 2005.
    Decided April 26, 2005.
    Lauren Elizabeth Case, Peter Raymond Johnson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Paresh S. Patel, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, George Levi Russell, III, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Courtney Edward Cooper pled guilty to one count of possession of stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2000). On August 31, 2004, the district court sentenced Cooper, over his objection based on Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), to a term of imprisonment of 120 months followed by three years of supervised release. After Cooper filed his notice of appeal, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Cooper has filed an unopposed motion to vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing in light of Booker.

We grant the motion for remand to allow the district court to reconsider Cooper’s sentence in light of the Booker decision. Cooper indicates the only issue he wishes to pursue on appeal is the applicability of Blakely to the federal sentencing scheme as determined by the Supreme Court in Booker. Therefore, we affirm his conviction, vacate the sentence imposed by the district court, and remand for reconsideration of the sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED