United States v. Wilson , 128 F. App'x 514 ( 2005 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0356n.06
Filed: May 5, 2005
03-1338
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE WESTERN
v. ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
)
JUSTIN C. WILSON ) OPINION
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
BEFORE: MARTIN, COLE, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Justin C. Wilson appeals his sentence imposed following his convictions
via guilty plea for conspiracy to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 and conspiracy to launder money in violation of 18.U.S.C. § 1956(h). This
Court has previously held that the district court properly applied a leadership sentencing
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). United States v. Wilson, 112 Fed.Appx. 497, 2004 WL
2367972 (6th Cir. Oct. 20, 2004). On certiorari, that judgment was vacated and remanded to this
Court for proceedings consistent with United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Wilson v.
United States, 125 S. Ct. 1392 (2005).
Upon consideration, the sentence is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for
resentencing pursuant to the decisions in United States v. Oliver, 397 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 2005), and
United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2005). On remand, “we encourage the sentencing
judge to explicitly state his reasons for applying particular Guidelines, and sentencing within the
recommended Guidelines range, or in the alternative, for choosing to sentence outside that range.
Such a statement will facilitate appellate review as to whether the sentence was ‘reasonable.’”
United States v. Jones, 399 F.3d 640, 650 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765 (noting
that appellate review of a district court sentence is for reasonableness); United States v. Webb, —
F.3d —, 2005 WL 763367 (6th Cir. 2005) (engaging in reasonableness review, but refusing to
“define rigidly at this time either the meaning of reasonableness or the procedures that a district
judge must employ in sentencing post-Booker”).
Accordingly, we VACATE the sentence and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this
opinion.