Court Opinion

ID: 9440166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 07:26:36.651202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:27:18.823222
License: Public Domain

CARTER, Senior District Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the Opinion of the majority in its decision on the merits of Defendant’s challenges to the validity of his conviction and the vacating of the drug treatment and drug testing portions of Defendant’s supervised release conditions.
Because this panel is bound by a preexisting panel decision of this court, see Eulitt v. Me. Dep’t. Of Educ., 386 F.3d 344, 349 (1st Cir.2004), I reluctantly, and on that specific basis alone, concur as to the majority’s rejection of Defendant’s challenge, on the basis of Blakely v. Washington, -U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) and United States v. Booker,—U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), to the validity of his sentence. While I must accept, for purposes of my participation in this case, the holding of a panel of this circuit in United States v. Antonakopoulos, 399 F.3d 68 (1st Cir.2005), I do not agree with that decision’s rationale or holding. I share the concerns raised by Judge Lipez in his concurring opinion in United States v. Serrano-Beauvaix, 400 F.3d 50 (1st Cir.2005). I believe, however, that the rationale of Antonakopoulos is more deeply flawed in its constitutional analysis than even Judge Lipez suggests in Serrano-Beauvaix.