United States v. Jones, Philip D.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Philip D. JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
ORDER This case originally came to us on remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We previously ordered a limited remand of Philip D. Jones’s sentence in accordance with Booker and Paladino so that the district court could determine whether it believed Jones’s sentence remains appropriate now that Booker has relegated the United States Sentencing Guidelines to advisory status.
The district court has replied that, now knowing that the Guidelines are not mandatory, it desires to resentence Jones. We invited both parties to file any arguments concerning the appropriate disposition of this case in light of the district court’s decision. Both parties have filed statements agreeing that the case should be remanded to the district court for resentencing.
Therefore, while we reaffirm our decision rejecting Jones’s challenges to his conviction, see United States v. Jones, 389 F.3d 753 (7th Cir.2004), we hereby Vacate Jones’s sentence and Remand the case for resentencing, which must be conducted in conformity with Booker .
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(reaffirming the decision that rejected challenges to conviction but vacating and remanding the sentence for resentencing in conformity with Booker)
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.