Opinion ID: 3023731
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Forbes’ Challenge to His Sentence

Text: Forbes argues that the case should be remanded for resentencing pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Specifically, he contends that remand is appropriate because the District Court incorrectly treated the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory.2 Forbes was sentenced prior to Booker. His appeal, therefore, falls within the ambit of our decision in United States v. Davis, 407 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2005) (en banc), in which we held that defendants sentenced before Booker should have their sentencing 2 In Booker, the Supreme Court held that mandatory enhancement of a sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines based on facts found by the court alone, in the absence of a waiver of a jury trial, violates the Sixth Amendment. To remedy the constitutional infirmity of the Guidelines, the Court severed that portion of the statute making application of the Guidelines mandatory, rendering them effectively advisory. United States v. Lore, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 26272, at  (3d Cir. Dec. 2, 2005) 4 challenge “remand[ed] for consideration of the appropriate sentence by the District Court in the first instance.” Id. at 166. The government concedes that the District Court assumed that the Guidelines were mandatory, but nevertheless contends that there is no need to vacate Forbes’ sentence because “it is clear from the record that the sentence imposed by the court would in fact be imposed again were the matter sent back.” 3 We have held that “where . . . a District Court clearly indicates that an alternative sentence would be identical to the sentence imposed under the Guidelines,” a remand is not warranted, because “any error that may attach to a defendant’s sentence under Booker is harmless.” United States v. Hill, 411 F.3d 425, 426 (3d Cir. 2005). The District Court’s statements in this case, however, lack the clarity demanded by Hill. Unlike in Hill, where the District Court clearly stated that it was imposing an identical alternative sentence under an indeterminate sentencing scheme, the District Court here made no such statement. Indeed, in its supplemental statement of reasons regarding the applicability of the Guidelines, the District Court checked a box indicating that “[t]he Court applied the Guidelines and all relevant enhancements in this case.” It could have, but did not, check a box indicating that the “judgment includes an alternative sentence,” or that “the Court found the Guidelines unconstitutional in part, and imposed a 3 The government bases this assertion, in large part, on the fact that the District Court declined to grant a downward departure and imposed a sentence ten years in excess of the mandatory minimum. 5 sentence in accordance with the constitutionally applied portions of the Guidelines.” We will, therefore, vacate Forbes’ sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with Booker.4