U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2005

United States v. Hammoud

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided April 27, 2005

405 F.3d 1034; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 7184; 2005 WL 975119 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Kenneth Davis Bell, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Charlotte, NC, Demetra Daniel Lambros, John F. DePue, Anthony Steven Murry, Martha Rubio, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff — Appellee., James Patrick McLoughlin, Jr., James William Haldin, Moore & Van Allen, Charlotte, NC, Stanley Lewis Cohen, New York, NY, for Defendant — Appellant., Nancy Chang, Shayana Devendrá Kadi-dal, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, NY, David Douglas Cole, Washington, DC, for Amici Supporting Appellant.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Mohamad Hammoud (4th Cir. 2012)
United States v. Hodges (4th Cir. 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

ORDER

This court, sitting en banc, previously affirmed Mohamad Youssef Hammoud’s convictions and sentence. See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated our decision, and remanded for reconsideration in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See Hammoud v. United States, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1051, 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).

Because the order of the Supreme Court does not affect our resolution of Ham-moud’s challenges to his convictions and the calculation of his guideline range, we reinstate those portions of our prior opinion. See Hammoud, 381 F.3d at 325-44, 354-57. However, the sentence imposed on Hammoud exceeded the maximum sentence authorized by the jury verdict alone, see United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 542 (4th Cir. 2005), and the Government cannot prove that this error, which Ham-moud preserved in the district court, did not affect Hammoud’s substantial rights, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a). We therefore vacate Hammoud’s sentence and remand for resentencing under the advisory guidelines regime set forth in Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 756-57, 764-65.

Entered at the direction of Chief Judge Wilkins with the concurrences of Judges Widener, Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Williams, Michael, Motz, Trader, King, Gregory, Shedd, and Duncan.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.