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 12-6-2005 

# U SA v . Hlin ak 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 . 04-3780

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 . Hl in ak " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 159. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/159NOT 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. 04- 3780 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J E F F RE Y HL I NAK, A ppel l ant

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 . N o. 04- cr - 00091) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember14, 2005 B efore: R O T H , F U E N T E S , and B E C K E R , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed D ece m ber6, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. A ppel l antJ eff

r eyH l i nak’ s r es pons e t o t hi s C our t ’ s O r derdat ed M ar ch 7, 2005 r egar di ng t he appl i cabi l i t yof U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) , s t at es t hathe“cha l l enges onl yhi s s ent ence . ” Pur s uantt o s ai d O r der , s uch a s t at ementi s t o be

“ c o n stru e d a s w a iv in g a n yiss u e s re late d to th e c o n v ictio n .” W e th e re f o re a d d re ss o n ly t he s ent enci ng i s s ue. I n U ni t ed St at es v. D avi s , 407 F. 3d 162 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( en banc ) –an opi ni on r el at i ng t o t he deni al of a gove r nm entpet i t i on forr ehea r i ng en banc conce r ni ng a B oo ker cl ai m on plai n-errorrevi ew –thi s C ou rtst at ed thatexcep ti n li m i t ed cir cum st ances, w e w il l presu m e p rejud ice a n d d ir ec t a rem an d fo r resen tenc ing w h ere the D istri ct C o u rt im p o sed a se n tenc e in th e b eli ef that the a p p li ca b le S en tenc ing G u idelines w ere m and at ory . T hat w as the si tuati on here, and w e percei ve n o cir cum st ance in t his case w hi ch w arr ant s a di ffe r entr es ul tfr om t hatfound i n D avi s . H avi ng det erm i ned thatt he sent encing i ssues appell ant r ai ses ar e bestdeterm i ned byt he D i stri ctC ou rti n the fi rs t instan ce , itis O R D E R E D an d A D JU D G E D that the A p p ell an t’ s req u est fo r sum m ary re m a n d is G R A N T E D . T h e A p p e llan t' s s e n ten c e is V A C A T E D a n d th is m a tter is R E M A N D E D fo r resen tenc ing in ac co rda n ce w ith B o o k er.