2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-16-2005 

# U SA v . Mi l le r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 02-4304

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Mi l le r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1192. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1192T he H onor abl e J ohn R . G i bs on, Seni orC i r cui tJ udge fort he U ni t ed St at es C our tof * A ppeal s fort he Ei ghth C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o: 02- 4304 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , A ppel l ant v. EARNES T M I LL ER, a /k /a PAU L J ON ES a /k /a EAR NEST RU SS ELL

_____________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 01 C R 00186) D istric t Ju d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le E d w in M . K o sik Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a) A fter R em an d fro m the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt B e f o re : F U E N T E S , S M IT H a n d G IB S O N , C i r cui tJudges *

( Fi l ed: M ay16, 2005)

______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

________________S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge .

I n an opi ni on fi l ed on A pr i l 15, 2004, w e agr eed w i t h t he U ni t ed St at es , t he a p p e llan t in th is c rim in a l ap p e a l, an d c o n c lu d e d th a t th e re w e re “ n o f a c ts in th is re c o rd to s u p p o rt th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d o w n w a rd d e p a rt u re u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .3 o r U .S .S .G . § 5K 2. 0. " Consi s t entw i t h t hatdet erm i nat i on, w e vac at ed the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ct C o u rt s e n te n c in g E a rn e s t M ille r t o 4 1 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. M il ler fil ed a ti m elyp eti ti o n fo r w ri t of ce rt iorari w ith the S u p rem e C o u rt . A fter i s s ui ng i t s deci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. __, 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) , t he Supr eme C our tgr ant ed M i l l er ’ s pet i t i on forw r i tof ce r t i or ar i , vaca t ed ourj udgm ent , and r emanded forfur t herpr ocee di ngs i n l i ghtof B ooker . T her eaf t er , t he C l erk of thi s C our tdi r ect ed the part i es i n a not i ce da t ed M ar ch 3, 2005, t o comm enton t he appl i cabi l i t yof B ooker . N e ith e r p a rtyre sp o n d e d . T h u s, it appea r s t hatnei t herpar t ys eeks r es ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i t h B o o ke r . Fort hatr eas on, w e w i l l aff

i r m t he j udgm entof s ent ence .