Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin C. WILSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-05
Citations: 128 F. App'x 514
Docket Number: No. 03-1338
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin C. WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 128
Pages: 514–515

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin C. WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-1338.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 5, 2005.
B. Rene Shekmer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Grand Rapids, MI, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Paul L. Nelson, Federal Public Defenders Office, Grand Rapids, MI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before MARTIN, COLE, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Justin C. Wilson appeals his sentence imposed following his convictions via guilty plea for conspiracy to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 846 and conspiracy to launder money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). This Court has previously held that the district court properly applied a leadership sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c). United States v. Wilson, 112 Fed.Appx. 497 (6th Cir.2004). On certiorari, that judgment was vacated and remanded to this Court for proceedings consistent with United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Wilson v. United States, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 1392, 161 L.Ed.2d 101 (2005).
Upon consideration, the sentence is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for resentencing pursuant to the decisions in United States v. Oliver, 397 F.3d 369 (6th Cir.2005), and United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2005). On remand, "we encourage the sentencing judge to explicitly state his reasons for applying particular Guidelines, and sentencing within the recommended Guidelines range, or in the alternative, for choosing to sentence outside that range. Such a statement will facilitate appellate review as to whether the sentence was 'reasonable.' " United States v. Jones, 399 F.3d 640, 650 (6th Cir.2005); see also Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 765 (noting that appellate review of a district court sentence is for reasonableness); United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373 (6th Cir.2005) (engaging in reasonableness review, but refusing to "define rigidly at this time either the meaning of reasonableness or the procedures that a district judge must employ in sentencing post-Booker'7).
Accordingly, we VACATE the sentence and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.