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 7-12-2005 

# U SA v . B r anch 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 . 04-2160

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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . B r a nch" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 871. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/871NOT 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

____________ N o. 04- 2160

____________ UN I TE D STAT ES O F AM ERI CA

v. TERRANCE BRANCH, Appellant
____________ 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 D istri ct of

D elaw are D . C . N o. : 03- cr - 00011 D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G r egoryM . Sl eet

____________ A r gued D ece m ber13, 2004 D eci ded J anuary20, 2005 C er t i or ar i G r ant ed M ay16, 2005 J udgm entV aca t ed and Rem anded f r om t he Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es

M ay24, 2005 Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a) J ul y8, 2005

____________ B efore: *N Y G A A R D , B E C K E R , and R O S E N N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J ul y12, 2005)

____________2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ R O SE N N , C i r cui tJ udge. A ppel l antT err ance B r anch w as convi ct ed of pos s es s i ng a fi r earm i n vi ol at i on of 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) i n t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s Di s t r i c tCo u r tf o rt h e Di s t r i c to f

De l a wa r e . He w a s trie d b yju rya n d su b se q u e n tlyse n ten c e d to 1 2 0 m o n th s in p riso n . B ra n c h tim e ly a p p e a le d h is c o n v ic tio n to th is C o u rt , b u t d id n o t c h a lle n g e h is s e n te n c e . W e a f f irm e d h is c o n v ictio n in U n ited S tate s v . B ra n c h , N o . 0 4 -2 1 6 0 , slip o p . at 4 ( 3d C i r . J an. 20, 2005) . T he Supr eme C our tgr ant ed ce r t i or ar i . I n B r anch v. U ni t ed St at es , 125 S. C t . 2281 ( 2005) , t he Supr eme C our tvaca t ed the j udgm entand r emanded fo r fu rth er c o n side rati o n in li g h t of U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 54 3 U . S . -- ( 2 0 0 5 ). A ft erfur t hercons i der at i on, w e r eaf fi r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on fort he r eas ons s etfor t h i n ouropi ni on of J anuary20, 2005. H ow ever , i n l i ght o f B o o k e r, t h e a p p e lla n t’ s s e n te n c e m u s t b e re v ie w e d a n d its a p p ro p ri a te n e s s a s c e rt a in e d . B eca us e w e bel i eve thatt hi s i s bes tdet erm i ned byt he D i s t r i ctC our ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , w e w il l vac ate the sen tenc e a n d rem an d fo r resen tenc ing in ac co rda n ce w ith B o o k er. U n it ed S tat es v . D av is, 4 0 7 F . 3 d 1 6 2 , 1 6 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (en b an c).

*T he H onor abl e J udge R i char d L . N y gaar d as s um ed s eni ors t atus on J ul y9, 2005.