Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-04-05081/USCOURTS-ca4-04-05081-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marlin Andrew Marrs
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

Document 1

Document 2

Appeal: 04-5081 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/27/2005 Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex

1100 E. Main Street, Suite 501

Richmond, Virginia 23219-3517

Patricia S. Connor

Clerk

www.ca4.uscourts.gov Telephone

(804) 916-2700

 June 27, 2005

 Teresa L. Deppner

 U. S. DISTRICT COURT

 Federal Station Box 4128

 Bluefield, WV 24702

 Re: 04-5081 US v. Marlin Marrs

 CR-03-289

 Dear Clerk:

 Enclosed is an opinion of this Court remanding the case for

 limited purpose. The record on appeal is being returned for the

 district court's use.

 Yours truly,

 PATRICIA S. CONNOR

 Clerk

 /s/ Lisa Jernigan

 By: ________________________

 Deputy Clerk

 cc: John Lanier File

 Michael L. Desautels

 Jonathan David Byrne

Appeal: 04-5081 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/27/2005 Pg: 2 of 5
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-5081

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARLIN ANDREW MARRS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief

District Judge. (CR-03-289)

Submitted: June 8, 2005 Decided: June 27, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan David Byrne, Michael L. Desautels, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL

PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. John

Lanier File, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

Appeal: 04-5081 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/27/2005 Pg: 3 of 5
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Marlin Andrew Marrs pled guilty to knowingly and

intentionally distributing “a quantity” of cocaine base on March 6,

2002, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). He was

sentenced to forty-six months of imprisonment. At the sentencing

hearing, Marrs objected to the district court’s consideration of

certain relevant conduct in determining his sentence, arguing that

the holding in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004),

applied to the federal sentencing guidelines. The district court

overruled his objection, relying on United States v. Hammoud, 378

F.3d 426 (4th Cir.) (order), opinion issued by 381 F.3d 316 (4th

Cir. 2004) (en banc), vacated, 125 S. Ct. 1051 (2005). Marrs noted

an appeal. The parties have now filed a joint motion to remand the

case for resentencing, citing United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.

738 (2005), and United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir.

2005).

In Booker, the Supreme Court held that the mandatory

manner in which the federal sentencing guidelines required courts

to impose sentence enhancements based on facts found by the court

by a preponderance of the evidence violated the Sixth Amendment.

125 S. Ct. at 746, 750 (Stevens, J., opinion of the Court). After

Booker, courts must calculate the appropriate guideline range,

consider the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under

the guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005),

Appeal: 04-5081 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/27/2005 Pg: 4 of 5
*Just as we noted in Hughes, 401 F.3d at 545 n.4, “[w]e of

course offer no criticism of the district judge, who followed the

law and procedure in effect at the time” of Marrs’s sentencing. 

- 3 -

and impose a sentence. If a court imposes a sentence outside the

guideline range, the court must state its reasons for doing so.

Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. This remedial scheme applies to any

sentence imposed under the mandatory guidelines, regardless of

whether the sentence violates the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 547

(citing Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 769 (Breyer, J., opinion of the

Court)).

We conclude that Marrs preserved the issue of whether his

sentence was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment. We

further hold that the sentence did constitute such a violation, and

therefore, grant the parties’ joint motion to remand, vacate the

sentence, and remand for resentencing consistent with Booker.*

Following resentencing, the appeal shall be returned to this court

for further proceedings. 

VACATED AND REMANDED

Appeal: 04-5081 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/27/2005 Pg: 5 of 5