Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Tomas Espinal QUINONES, aka Jose Ramirez, aka Felip Ramirez, aka Julia Plaudio Colindres, aka Placido Zavala, aka Ernesto Mata Borjas, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-19
Citations: 131 F. App'x 768
Docket Number: No. 04-4285-CR
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Tomas Espinal QUINONES, aka Jose Ramirez, aka Felip Ramirez, aka Julia Plaudio Colindres, aka Placido Zavala, aka Ernesto Mata Borjas, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: PRESENT: WALKER, Chief Judge, LEVAL, Circuit Judge, and DUPLANTIER, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 768–768

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Tomas Espinal QUINONES, aka Jose Ramirez, aka Felip Ramirez, aka Julia Plaudio Colindres, aka Placido Zavala, aka Ernesto Mata Borjas, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-4285-CR.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 19, 2005.
David C. James, Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York (Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney, Lara Treinis Gatz, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.
Yuanchung Lee, The Legal Aid Society, Federal Defender Division, Appeals Bureau, New York, NY, for Appellant.
PRESENT: WALKER, Chief Judge, LEVAL, Circuit Judge, and DUPLANTIER, District Judge.
The Honorable Adrian G. Duplantier, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant-appellant Tomas Espinal Quinones objected in the district court, on the basis of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), to his receipt of a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i). The district court, acting pursuant to this court's instructions in United States v. Mincey, 380 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.2004), disregarded that objection and sentenced Quinones as if the United States Sentencing Guidelines were compulsory. Because Quinones preserved his claim by objecting before the district court, he is entitled to resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See United States v. Fagans, 406 F.3d 138, 140 & n. 1 (2d Cir.2005). We accordingly remand to the district court with instructions to vacate the sentence and resentence in conformity with Booker.