Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

) -·-J·.L....,......,,_ *···—·—~·—-;—····—··————-—
p I I I __ . ____ I
i Case 3.03-cr-00261rtQ.I;lN IQoatu£ij%n _' Wawed 04/24/2006
I . · tri ft Sie. i" ts rf; at is fm
I u i ji ·_ . i '~ ; Q II-` l.i}-..~"/ ·'-T-·' D- '_” `
: ‘ " .,,,,, z;;, ,, . 03—cr—261 I
l ·· " i li .¤=1 . iii; ij} News J-
( United St ge §Z urge; Ap eals i
zi i is dit = I P
SECOND CIRCUIT
I `_ i:*··—*————t-m—-,-..f.iQ.`, §T'§t`l`:.. ; z iliiili ‘
I · l . At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
i Circu1t, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at Foley Square, in the i
City of New York, on the 22nd day of March, two thousand six,
Present: p _ In I
I Hon. Pierre N. Leval,
. Hon. Barrington D. Parker, $0;; ‘‘'" l` i i“"W M" 4'°·{;a Ii
‘ · . · _ ..,-` _ af.
U . Circuit Judges, MAR 22 Zmjgwtw
Hon. William K. Sessions III,
t District Judgei \ _e i’l££i_s.s.tst;na·i;ts?i**/ w
-- .
United States of America, .-~. . ,, ,_.. . t
Appellee,
v. 05-2165-cr
Mann-n smith,
Defendant-Appellant. _

<· The Govemmcnt moves to summarily affirm the appe1lant’s appeal from his judgment of conviction
andrsentence. Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The appellants
‘claim1:thatIa district court violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments when it calculates a sentence with
- enhancements based on dismissed conduct, not admitted bythe appellant or found by a jury, is foreclosed
I byrecent precedent. See United States v. Vaughn, 430 F .3d 518, 525-27 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that district
courts may continue to consider relevant acquitted conduct whenpsentencmg a defendant after the Supreme
Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)); see also United States v. Stretch, 987
_ F.2d-.104, 108 (2d Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (“a def`endant’s right to be free from double jeopardy is not
r infringed by sentencing enhancements based upon acquitted, much less dismissed, counts of an indictment")
_.,—_e_ _ I ._ (emphasis added). The district court sentenced the appellant well-below the statutory maximum and within _
‘·.. I, ‘ g-the_advisory Guidelines range determined. in accordance with facts the court found by a preponderanceof -` `
I·`t " ” . I§é£`1theI..svidence. See Vaughn, 430 F.3d -at 527. Because the appellant challenges only the sentencing
enhancement based upon dismissed conduct, all other potential claims are deemed abandoned. See LeSecco 0
efimddletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92 (2d Cir. 1995); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a),
` A FOR THE COURT: ‘
‘ L - Roseann B i acKecl1nie, C =-
.,`.. E. A 9 I "~ * Jl LI; · . . ...4 _ . _
j `The`Honorable William K. Sessions III, Chief Jud ‘ ` U -'t d St t D' `I
V ti}c`DiStI°iCt Of"/€I`II'1GI]t, sitting designation, gc 0 6 ui-ii', for
-uscAwm B · Mac? (jhI),j,C·Z y V-
`
—.t.a ..~r . -.t.~ _-... l . ‘%J_ _
·t=~s.»>t.` .-ss. r.»»:»·i...:s{¤;;» V I _
-1SSUED AS MANDATE= W _ - " . · ,43 putty ¢;L,E.ttl< I