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

10-26-2005

USA v. Shough Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-1443

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

Recommended Citation "USA v. Shough" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 339. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/339

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 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________

No. 05-1443 ________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

LEONARD SHOUGH, Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 04-cr-00009E) District Judge: Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr. _______________________________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 21, 2005 Before: SMITH, BECKER and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Filed: October 26, 2005 )

_______________________

OPINION _______________________

BECKER, Circuit Judge.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Leonard Shough entered a plea of guilty to the first count of an eight-count indictment charging him with mail and wire fraud.

Shough was sentenced to 84 months’ imprisonment followed by a term of three years’

supervised release.

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

(2005), the sentence having been based in part upon findings made by the

District Court as to amount of loss and Shough’s conduct in assuming another’s identity.

Having determined that the sentencing issues appellant raises are best determined by the

District Court in the first instance, we will vacate the sentence and remand for

resentencing in accordance with Booker. See United States v. Davis,

(3d

Cir. 2005) (en banc).

2