Court Opinion

ID: 9467431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:48:46.032033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:20.736972
License: Public Domain

SNEED, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the opinion of the court. An explanation of my previous dissent from the disposition of this case is appropriate, however.
Previously I suggested that appellant’s conviction be reversed and that the prosecutor should determine whether reprosecution was appropriate. This was based on the assumption that reprosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) was possible which, in turn, rested on the assumption that the appellant used a firearm during the commission of the robbery. It now appears that the indictment charged the appellant with carrying a firearm only. Enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), therefore, is not available.
That being the case, and resort to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2) not being available, pursuant to the court’s opinion with which I concur, it follows that there is no reason to object to remanding this case merely for the purpose of correcting the sentence. I therefore concur in the disposition of the case as well.