United States v. Saldana
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Samuel SALDANA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
* IT IS ORDERED that the district court supplement its final order of judgment and *682 commitment for Samuel Saldana, specifically setting forth the reasons for which the court upwardly departed in sentencing the defendant. Although the district court expressed reasons orally, its original order stated only that it upwardly departed 'under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, the policy statement that sets forth the general rules for departure under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. This general reference does not specify any particular grounds or reasons for departing or for the extent of the departure, and thus fails to fulfill the mandatory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (c)(2) for the sentencing court to commit its reasons for a departure to writing. Neither is the district court’s order sufficiently specific to permit us to determine the reasonableness of the court’s departure from the guidelines range. Retaining jurisdiction for further proceedings following remand, this panel remands this case to the district court for the limited purpose of having it render a supplemental order expressing its reasons for upwardly departing. We request that the court do so as expeditiously as practicable.
REMANDED.
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *682 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
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.