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 6-15-2005 

# U SA v . Guzm an 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 . 03-3068

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . 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 and 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 ll anova 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 an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . G uzm an" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1014. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1014NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL 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 N o. 03- 3068

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RO BI NS ON GUZ M AN, A ppel l ant

ON A P P EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D i s tC our tN o. 02- C R - 00761) D i s t r i ctC our tJ udge: H on. J ohn C . L i fl and Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember1, 2004 B efore: A L ITO , B A R R Y , and F U E N T E S C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 15, 2005)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURTP E R C U R IA M :

T h e d e f e n d a n t in th is c a se p led g u iltyto a o n e -c o u n t in d ictm e n t th a t ch a rg e d h im wi t h c o n s p i r i n g t o d i s t r i b u t e a n d t o p o s s e s s wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e mo r e t h a n 5 0 g r a ms of cr ack c ocai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d t he d e f e n d a n t to 1 2 0 m o n th s o f im p ri s o n m e n t. T he def endantfi l ed a pr o s e not i ce of appea l , and def

ens e couns el s ubm i t t ed a b ri e f p u rs u a n t to A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ), a n d m o v e d to w ith d ra w . Fol l ow i ng t he dec i s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) , w e i s s ued a pe r cur i am opi ni on. W e i dent i fi ed onl yone non- fr i vol ous i s s ue, namel y , t hatt he D i s t r i ct C o u rth ad sen tenc ed the d ef en d an t on the a ssu m p ti o n that the S en tenc ing G u idelines w ere m andat or y . W e vac at ed the s ent ence i m pos ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our tand r emanded for re s e n te n c in g in a c c o rd a n c e w ith B o o k e r, a n d w e d e n ie d c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n to w ith d ra w . W e l at ergr ant ed the governm ent ’ s pet i t i on forpanel r ehea r i ng, and i n l i ghtof the fac tt hatt he mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence pr es cr i bed bys t atut e fort he off ens e forw hi ch t h e d e f e n d a n twa s c o n v i c t e d i s 1 0 y e a r s o f i mp r i s o n me n t , s e e 2 1 U. S . C. § § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) a n d 8 4 6 , w e n o w c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e a p p e a l d o e s n o tp r e s e n ta n yn o n - f r i v o l o u s i s s u e s . We th u s d is m is s th e a p p e a l a n d g ra n t c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n to w ith d ra w .