U.S. v. Fennell, 93-3064
| Decision Date | 04 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-3064,93-3064 |
| Citation | 77 F.3d 510,316 U.S.App. D.C. 198 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Sean M. FENNELL, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Before: WALD, SILBERMAN and TATEL, Circuit Judges.
In an opinion filed May 5, 1995, we affirmed Fennell's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). After he petitioned for rehearing, we deferred our decision pending the Supreme Court's disposition of Bailey v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). In light of Bailey, we granted the petition and requested further briefing.
The Government agrees that Bailey requires reversal of Fennell's § 924(c) conviction, but requests that we remand for resentencing on his drug conviction, arguing that without the § 924(c) conviction, he should receive a 2-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Fennell argues that the Government has waived its right to resentencing by not filing a "conditional cross-appeal"--that is, a timely appeal asserting that if the court were to reverse the § 924(c) conviction, the court should remand for resentencing on the drug count. We disagree. Requiring the Government to file a preemptive cross-appeal in this sort of case "would burden appellees (and courts) with no appreciable benefit to appellate practice." United States v. Bohn, 959 F.2d 389, 394 (2d Cir.1992). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that appellant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) be reversed; and it is further
ORDERED that this case be remanded to the district court for resentencing.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Crowder
...Cir. July 17, 1996); see, e.g., Clements, 86 F.3d at 601; Bermudez, 82 F.3d at 550; Lang, 81 F.3d at 963; United States v. Fennell, 77 F.3d 510, 510-11 (D.C.Cir.1996) (per curiam); United States v. Roulette, 75 F.3d 418, 426 (8th Cir.1996). In considering the question of jurisdiction, there......
-
U.S. v. Moore, s. 93-3158
...that Moore's conviction under section 924(c) must be reversed, and we remand the case for resentencing. See United States v. Fennell, 77 F.3d 510 (D.C.Cir.1996) (per curiam). B. Sufficiency of the Moore further argues that his other convictions must be overturned for lack of sufficient evid......
-
United States v. Sitzmann
...Id. (emphasis added); see also United States v. Fennell , 53 F.3d 1296, 1304 (D.C. Cir. 1995), rev’d on other grounds on reh’g , 77 F.3d 510 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (confirming that "[w]hen an appellant has not raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel before the district court, either i......
-
U.S. v. Tolson, CRIM 03-0262RCL.
...pleadings alone." Taylor, 139 F.3d at 932 (citing United States v. Fennell, 53 F.3d 1296, 1303-04 (D.C.Cir.1995), modified on reh'g 77 F.3d 510 (D.C.Cir.1996); United States v. Pinkney, 543 F.2d 908, 914 (D.C.Cir.1976)). A hearing may not be necessary if, for example, the withdrawal motion ......