TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Anthony Tesoriero

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Anthony TESORIERO, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Tesoriero, 413 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2005)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 28, 2005
Docket
No. 04-2017-CR
Judges
Miner, Calabresi, Amon
Citations
413 F.3d 2912005 WL 15153152005 U.S. App. LEXIS 12783

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-Appellant, Anthony Tesone-ro (“Tesonero”), appeals from a judgment and sentence entered following his conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, for conspir *292 acy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 , 846. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented on appeal.

Tesoriero correctly challenges the validity of his sentence following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Since this argument was not presented below, the appropriate course is to remand this case to the district court for consideration of resentenc-ing pursuant to United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.2005).

The Government relies on our decision in United States v. Sharpley, 399 F.3d 123 (2d Cir.2005), to argue that a Crosby remand is not necessary in this case because Tesoriero was sentenced to the statutory minimum sentence for his offense — ten years’ imprisonment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 841 (b).

See id.

at 126-27 (holding that because the defendant’s sentence was set at the statutory minimum “any reduction [on remand] in the calculated Guidelines range could not reduce [the defendant’s] actual sentence,” and, hence, that the case presented “a prototypical example of harmless error”).

Sharpley , however, did not involve, as the case before us does, a Government motion for downward sentencing departure pursuant to § 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines as well as 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (e). The presence of such a motion in the instant case distinguishes Tesoriero’s situation from that of the defendant in Sharpley , because, on remand, the district court has the authority to sentence Tesoriero below the ten-year mandatory minimum.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (e).

We have considered all of Tesoriero’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. The case is hereby Remanded for consideration of resentencing.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2005: 12008: 120052026peak 2005 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. London148 F. App'x 19 (2d Cir. 2005)
  2. United States v. Tesoriero264 F. App'x 65 (2d Cir. 2008)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Tesoriero264 F. App'x 65 (2d Cir. 2008)
  2. United States v. London148 F. App'x 19 (2d Cir. 2005)

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.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Sharpley, 399 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2005) 46
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2004) 20,425
United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005) 1,212

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list