USA v. Reed
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
F I L E D
May 19, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
No. 04-41609 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CLYDE TINER REED, III, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CR-253-1 -------------------Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Clyde Tiner Reed, III, appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for distribution of crack cocaine. Reed
argues that his sentence was improper under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because it was based on facts that were neither found by a jury nor admitted by him. Reed's assertion of Booker error is correct. He preserved
this error by raising an objection to his sentence grounded in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). See United States v.
Garza, 429 F.3d 165, (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-41609 -21444 (2006). When, as is the case here, a Booker error has been
preserved in the district court, we "will ordinarily vacate the sentence and remand, unless [this court] can say the error is harmless under Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 284 (5th
Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Government has not met its "arduous" burden of demonstrating "beyond a reasonable doubt that the Sixth Amendment Booker error did not affect the sentence that [Reed] received." F.3d at 285, 287. Pineiro, 410
Consequently, Reed's sentence is VACATED, and
the case is REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?