Case ID: f-appx_132/html/0217-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARTZ, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrelle Vinson MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-1348.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    May 23, 2005.
    John W. Suthers, U.S. Attorney, Jerry N. Jones, Martha Ann Paluch, M.J. Menendez, Office of the United States Attorney, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert William Pepin, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SEYMOUR, HARTZ, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

HARTZ, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Terrelle Vinson Martin was convicted after a jury trial of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Because Defendant has multiple prior felony convictions, he was designated an armed career criminal. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). His resulting total offense level, 33, and criminal history category, VI, yielded a guidelines range of 235-293 months’ imprisonment. The district court sentenced Defendant to the 235-month minimum sentence.

Before the sentencing hearing Defendant filed a motion arguing that in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the Sentencing Guidelines were unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion and Defendant appeals.

While this matter was on appeal the United States Supreme Court handed down United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The government concedes that United States v. Labastida-Segura, 396 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir.2005), requires Defendant’s case to be remanded for resentencing.

We agree and REMAND to the district court for resentencing. 
      
       After examining the briefs and appellate record, this, panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.