United States v. Mark
United States v. Mark
Opinion of the Court
Kaye Shaw Marr appeals her sentence for conspiring to manufacture, distribute, or possess with the intent to manufacture or distribute more than five but less than
The sentencing transcript is devoid of evidence that the district court would have imposed the same sentence under an advisory regime, and, therefore, as the Government concedes, it cannot bear its burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court’s error was harmless. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 464 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Marr’s sentence is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. See id. at 466. Because we vacate Marr’s sentence and remand for resentencing under an advisory guidelines scheme, we do not reach the other claim of sentencing error that she raises. See United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 377 n. 62 (5th Cir. 2005).
VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.