NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 10a0061n.06 No. 08-4430 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff - Appellee , v. WI L L I E D . O RR, De fe nd ant - Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED ST ATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE NORTHE RN DI STRI CT OF O H IO

Be fore : DAUGHT REY, GI L MAN, and KETHL EDGE, Circuit Judges.
KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e . The defe nd ant , Wil lie Or r, ple d guil ty

to b e inga

fe lon in possession of a fir ear

m, in violation of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g )(1) . At sentenc ing, the district court calc ulated an a dvisory

Sentenc i n g Gu i d eli nes ra ng e of 57 to 71 months’ imprisonment. Orr reque ste d th a t h is f

e d e r a l s e n te n c e r

u n c o n c u r

r e n tl y w it h a 2 4
- mo n th s e n te n c e th a t h e w a s then
se rv ingfo r a

n unr e late d s tate c on vic tio n. Th e c ourt de nie d th a t re qu e st, bu t sta te d th a t O rr ’s state sentenc e provide d “g rounds for me to vary from the g uideline ca lculation to give y ou a somewhat lower se ntence [.] ” The court then imp o s ed a s en t ence of 42 months’ imprisonment to run
consec utively

to the state sentenc e, addingthat “42 months toge ther with the state c ourt conviction will come just slightly

under the g uideline ra

ng e[.] ”No. 08-4430

Un ite d S tates v . O rr

-2- On a pp e a l, O rr

c on te nd s th a t th e se nte nc e imp os e d b y the dis tr ic t c ou

rt re su lte d f

ro m a mathematica l error . I n particula r, he a rg ues that the c ourt intended to select a sentenc e that, whe n combined with his 24-month state sentenc e, would yield a total term of imprisonment just below the advisory Guidelines ra

ng e of 57 to 71 months. The 42-month sente nce a ctually imposed, howeve r, yields a total term of 66 months, above the midpoint of the Guid el i n es rang e. The g overnme nt
c on c e de s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s state me nts a t se nte nc ingwe re a mbi g uo us , a nd it h a s a sk e d u s to
rema nd the ca se for

a full re sentenc ing he aring
. Orr is unsatisfied w ith the gove rnment’s c oncession. In his reply brief, he argues for

a limit ed re mand to permit the district court to clar ify the appa rent c onflict betwe en its statements at sentenc ing a

nd the sentenc e it actua lly imposed, and then to c onsider whether to reduc e the f

eder al sentenc e or to run it conc urre ntly with the state one. That ar g ument is puzz ling. I n his opening brief, O rr a lso argued that the district cour t had imposed an unre asonable sentenc e within the mean i ng of United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005)—a

n argument that, if ac cepte d, would have r equire d a full re sentenc ing. I n short, the g overnme nt’s conce ssion gr ants Orr the ver y relief he initially

reque sted. I n any event, we ag ree with the g overnme nt that a full rese ntencing i s ap p ro p ri ate. The problem i n t h i s ca se is that the district court’s state ments at sentenc ing did not cor respond to the sentenc e it imposed. Fr om our vantag e point , howeve r, i t is imposs ible to say whether the district court made a mathematical er ror in calculating Orr’ s sentenc e or whether it misspoke when it stated that the total sentenc e would be just below O rr’ s Guidelines rang e. Under these c ircumstance s, we think it best to a ffor d the district c ourt full authority to select a

n appropr iate sente nce on r emand.No. 08-4430

Un ite d S tates v . O rr

-3- Be cause our decision moots Orr’ s rema ining c halleng es to his sentence , we e x press no view
on the ir me ri ts. Or

r’ s se nte nc e is v a c a te d, and the c a se is re mand e d fo r re se nte nc ing c on sis te nt w ith this opini on.