Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando PADILLA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-06
Citations: 26 F. App'x 890
Docket Number: No. 00-5128
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando PADILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 26
Pages: 890–891

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando PADILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-5128.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Feb. 6, 2002.
Before TACHA, Chief Judge, PORFILIO, Circuit Judge, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
TACHA, Chief Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant Amando Padilla pled guilty to a single count of distribution of an unspecified amount of methamphetamine. Based on its findings regarding the quanti ty of drugs involved, the district court sentenced him to over twenty-four years' imprisonment, in excess of the statutory maximum of twenty years established by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Mr. Padilla argues on appeal that his sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), which requires that "any fact that increases a penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." The government concedes this error and agrees that Mr. Padilla's sentence should be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing.
Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED for resentencing.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of. orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.