Case ID: f-appx_135/html/0273-01.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. Asbert ANAZCO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-15772.
    Non-Argument Calendar
    D.C. Docket No. 04-20227-CR-DLG.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    June 13, 2005.
    Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Dennis N. Urbano, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of violating 18 U.S.C. § 371 by conspiring to obstruct justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (Count 1), of the substantive § 1503 offense (Count 3), and of witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3), and the court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 18 months. He now appeals his sentences, contending that the court committed Blakely error, now recognized as Booker error. The Government concedes the error and recommends that the case be remanded for resentencing because “the record in this case does not permit the government to assert with confidence that there is no reasonable probability of a different result if the guidelines had been applied in an advisory, rather than mandatory, fashion.”

We agree.

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
      . Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).
     
      
      . United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).