Source: https://openjurist.org/124/f3d/203/aguilar-andrade-v-united-states
Timestamp: 2019-12-08 13:12:57
Document Index: 760648944

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 924', '§ 2255', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 2', '§ 924', '§ 924']

124 F3d 203 Aguilar-Andrade v. United States | OpenJurist
124 F. 3d 203 - Aguilar-Andrade v. United States
124 F3d 203 Aguilar-Andrade v. United States
Oscar AGUILAR-ANDRADE, Petitioner-Appellant,
No. 96-3873.
Submitted June 24, 1997.*
In October of 1994, Aguilar-Andrade challenged his § 924(c) firearm conviction in a motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied the motion, and while Aguilar-Andrade's appeal was pending before this court, the Supreme Court decided Bailey v. United States, 116 S.Ct. 501 (1995). Bailey clarified the definition of "use" for purposes of firearm crimes under § 924(c). Id. at 505. This court remanded to the district court upon its certification that it intended to reconsider Aguilar-Andrade's § 924(c) conviction in light of Bailey. The government moved to vacate the § 924(c) conviction and resentence Aguilar-Andrade on the remaining conviction with the addition of a U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement for possession of a firearm at the time of the offense. The district court agreed and resentenced Aguilar-Andrade to 140 months' imprisonment on the conspiracy conviction, and to a consecutive four months' imprisonment for contempt of court.
Aguilar-Andrade appeals, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to resentence him on the unchallenged conviction remaining after his successful Bailey challenge. The law in this circuit on this precise issue is now well-settled, and renders Aguilar-Andrade's appeal without merit. A sentence imposed for multi-count convictions is a package and becomes unbundled when a § 924(c) conviction is set aside. The district court is vested with jurisdiction to completely resentence what remains in order to effectuate a recognition in the ultimate sentence for each element contemplated by the Sentencing Guidelines. When a § 924(c) conviction for use of a firearm is vacated, the applicability of the otherwise impermissible enhancement for possession of a firearm may be revived, depending on the facts. See United States v. Smith, 103 F.3d 531, 534-35 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Binford, 108 F.3d 723, 728-29 (7th Cir.1997); and Woodhouse v. United States, 109 F.3d 347, 348 (7th Cir.1997).