Court Opinion

ID: 9486991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:05:31.224144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:02.636083
License: Public Domain

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully agree with the Court that the conviction should be affirmed, and that the Eighth Amendment poses no obstacle to the sentence imposed.
In my view, however, the sentence should be vacated and the cause remanded for re-sentencing in accordance with the position taken by both parties in this Court. At the oral argument counsel for the government asked that the case be sent back to the District Court for reconsideration of the sentence in light of United States v. Washington, 17 F.3d 230 (8th Cir.1994). Counsel for the United States took the position that “in fairness” the District Court should make the initial decision as to the applicability of this recent decision, which was decided after the sentence was imposed in the instant ease.
The following colloquy took place:
Chief Judge Arnold: [A]re you saying then that it’s okay—that you agree that the case should be remanded for resentencing, and that it is possible for the Court, on remand, to make the sentence concurrent? I mean, legally.
Counsel for the United States: Yes, yes. It would legally be possible, yes sir.
Chief Judge Arnold: All right. I wonder if we—would it be appropriate for us to handle it by simply remanding it? I mean, we’d have to deal with the other arguments, of course. But let’s assume for the sake of discussion that we reject the arguments that go with the conviction, and that we remanded for resentencing, and just let both sides have a new go in light of the new ease and the position you are now taking. Is that in accord with your position?
Counsel for the United States: Well, I take it the Court can make a decision on the issues that have been presented, except segregate out the remand for resen-tencing.
Chief Judge Arnold: That’s what I’m saying.
Counsel for the United States: Yes. Okay.
I do not believe it is a good use of this Court’s time and effort to decide questions that both parties agree should be sent back to the District Court for re-examination. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s affirmance of the sentence in this case.