Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

12-5-2005

USA v. Gonzalez-Castillo Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 04-3260

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

Recommended Citation "USA v. Gonzalez-Castillo" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 167. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/167

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________

No. 04-3260 ________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

HELACIO GONZALEZ-CASTILLO, Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 04-cr-00078) District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane _______________________________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 14, 2005 Before: ROTH, FUENTES and BECKER, Circuit Judges

(Filed: December 5, 2005)

_______________________

OPINION _______________________

BECKER, Circuit Judge.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Helacio Gonzalez-Castillo entered a plea of guilty to a one-count indictment charging alleged entry into the United States as a

previously deported alien.

(a). Gonzalez-Castillo was sentenced to 24

months’ imprisonment.

Appellant challenges his sentence under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. —,

(2005). In United States v. Davis,

(3d Cir. 2005) (en banc), we

held that, except in limited circumstances, we will presume prejudice and direct a remand

for resentencing where the District Court imposed a sentence in the belief that the

applicable Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory. That was the situation here, and we

perceive no circumstance in this case that warrants a different result from that found in

Davis. We will therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance

with Booker.

2