Case ID: f-appx_595/html/0083-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Omar RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-3798.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 2, 2015.
    
      Peter J. Tomao, Garden City, NY, for Appellant.
    Michael P. Drescher (with Eugenia A.P. Cowles, Gregory L. Waples on the brief) for Tristram J. Coffin, United States Attorney for the District of Vermont, Burlington, VT, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, RICHARD C. WESLEY, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Omar Rodriguez appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Murtha, J.), sentencing him after a guilty plea to 262 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

After Rodriguez pled guilty to kidnapping, the district court calculated the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”) advisory range based on an enhanced sentencing scheme, which applies “if another offense was committed during the kidnapping.” USSG § 2A4.1(b)(7). The district court found as an “other offense” attempted murder. The court therefore increased the base offense level by cross-referencing the Guideline for attempted murder. See id. § 2A2.1. On appeal, Rodriguez challenges the district court’s cross-reference to the attempted murder Guideline.

The federal offense of attempted murder can be committed only with “a specific intent to kill.” United States v. Kwong, 14 F.3d 189, 194 (2d Cir.1994); see 18 U.S.C. § 1113. The record below includes no express findings regarding Rodriguez’s intent. In view of the specific facts and issues presented by this appeal, our review would be assisted by factual findings on the question whether Rodriguez had the requisite intent.

We REMAND to the district court to supplement its factual findings by a preponderance of the evidence. See Jacobson, 15 F.3d at 21-22. Specifically, the district court should make findings as to whether Rodriguez had the intent necessary to commit the offense of attempted murder, see Kwong, 14 F.3d at 194; cf. United States v. Atehortva, 69 F.3d 679, 687 (2d Cir.1995), and necessary to properly apply the cross-reference, see USSG § 2A2.1(a); cf. United States v. Mock, 523 F.3d 1299, 1303-04 (11th Cir.2008).

The mandate shall issue forthwith. Upon the conclusion of the renewed district court proceedings, either party may restore jurisdiction to this Court by filing with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, within 30 days, a letter (along with a copy of the relevant supplemental order or transcript) advising the Clerk that jurisdiction should be restored. No new notice of appeal or additional filing fee will be required. In the interest of judicial economy, any renewed appeal will be assigned to this panel.