Court Opinion

ID: 996629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:53:44.536354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:26.444295
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 97-4348

DEBORAH K. DERAIMO,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.
(CR-93-289)

Submitted: September 22, 1998

Decided: October 22, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, George H. Lancaster, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Rebecca B. Betts, United States Attorney, Miller A.
Bushong III, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Deborah K. DeRaimo appeals the district court's order sentencing
her to twenty-one months' imprisonment and an unspecified term of
supervised release, contending that the sentence is impermissibly
vague. Our review leads us to conclude that the district court's oral
pronouncement of sentence is subject to multiple interpretations and
is therefore ambiguous. Because this ambiguity is not resolved by ref-
erence to either the written judgment or the record on appeal, we
vacate this portion of the sentencing order and remand for resentenc-
ing. See United States v. May, 52 F.3d 885 (10th Cir. 1995) (vacating
as ambiguous restitution order insusceptible to clarification).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED*
_________________________________________________________________
*In remanding for resentencing, we observe for guidance of the district
court that United States v. Lominac, 144 F.3d 308 (4th Cir. 1998),
decided while this appeal was pending, speaks to the retroactive applica-
tion of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h).

                    2