United States of America v. Leonard J. Sicenavage

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-3095
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
LEONARD J. SICENAVAGE,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Criminal No. 03-cr-00370-1
(Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter)
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 17, 2005
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, VAN ANTWERPEN and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: October 31, 2005 )
OPINION OF THE COURT
SCIRICA, Chief Judge.
Appellant Leonard Sicenavage pled guilty to one count of armed bank robbery in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). The District Court found Sicenavage was subject to the
career offender provision of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and sentenced him to 212

-- 1 of 2 --

In light of our remand to the District Court, we need not address Sicenavage’s claim1
that the District Court erred in sentencing him under the career offender provision of the
Guidelines.
2
months imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $100 fine. Sicenavage
challenges his sentence, but not his conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
Sicenavage contends the District Court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when
it found him to be a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines. Sicenavage also
claims the District Court erred, in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. - -, 125 S. Ct.
738,755-56 (2005), in treating the sentencing scheme as mandatory rather than advisory.
In accordance with our decision in United States v. Davis, we will vacate the
sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with Booker. United States v. Davis,
407 F.3d 162, 165 (3d Cir. 2005) (concluding defendants sentenced under the previously
mandatory guidelines regime should have their sentencing challenge remanded to the
District Court).1

-- 2 of 2 --