Opinion ID: 3015716
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Davenport’s Sentence

Text: Subsequent to submission of this case, Davenport requested a remand to the District Court for resentencing pursuant to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). As discussed above, Davenport’s conviction was pursuant to a guilty plea, preserving his ability to appeal the District Court’s suppression ruling. The plea agreement, while expressly reserving the right to appeal the suppression 5 ruling, does not include an express waiver of the right to appeal his sentence. Therefore, our recent holding that a defendant who has knowingly entered into a plea agreement is not entitled to resentencing under Booker does not apply, as the plea agreement in that case included an express waiver of appellate rights. United States v. Lockette, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 1038937 (3d Cir. May 5, 2005). The government argues that remand is not appropriate because the only issue at sentencing was whether Davenport was a career offender, a permissible judicial finding. See United States v. Ordaz, 398 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that a District Court’s finding of prior convictions does not violate the Sixth Amendment, citing AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 244 (1998)). Contrary to the Government’s position, Davenport apparently requested a departure under United States v. Shoupe, 35 F.3d 835 (3d Cir.1994), contending that the career offender guidelines over-represented his criminal history. The District Court denied the departure on the basis that there was no legal precedent for such a departure from the Federal Guidelines. As this decision by the District Court is affected by the conclusion in Booker that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are only advisory, this case will be remanded for resentencing. Davenport’s two challenges to his conviction are without merit, as the District Court’s denial of the motion to suppress was not in error, and his judgment of conviction is affirmed. Davenport’s sentence is reversed and remanded for resentencing consistent with Booker. 6