United States of America v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 545 n. 4 4th Cir. 2005 , “[w]e of course offer no criticism of…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5056
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TODD ARTHUR LECADRE, a/k/a Xavier Eric
Rodriguez, a/k/a Xavier Diaz, a/k/a Xavier
Eric Rodriguez, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (CR-04-88)
Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 15, 2005
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
James O. Broccoletti, ZOBY & BROCCOLETTI, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Vincent L.
Gambale, Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy R. Murphy,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

*Just as we noted in United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,
545 n. 4 (4th Cir. 2005), “[w]e of course offer no criticism of the
district judge, who followed the law and procedure in effect at the
time” of Lecadre’s sentencing. See generally Johnson v. United
States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997) (stating that an error is “plain”
if “the law at the time of trial was settled and clearly contrary”
to the law at the time of appeal).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Todd Arthur Lecadre pled guilty, without a plea
agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and
to distribute 50 or more grams of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2000), and distribution of 52.3 grams of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.
§ 841 (2000). The district court sentenced Lecadre to 108 months
imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The court also
announced an alternative sentence, in the absence of the federal
sentencing guidelines, of 48 months imprisonment on each count, to
run concurrently.
Lecadre has appealed, challenging his sentence under the
Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738
(2005). We conclude that Lecadre is entitled to be resentenced
under Booker, as the Government concedes. * Although the Sentencing
Guidelines are no longer mandatory, Booker makes clear that a
sentencing court must still “consult [the] Guidelines and take them
into account when sentencing.” 125 S. Ct. at 767. On remand, the
district court should first determine the appropriate sentencing
range under the Guidelines, making all factual findings appropriate
for that determination. See Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546 (applying

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
plain error analysis to challenge under Booker). The court should
consider this sentencing range along with the other factors
described in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) and then impose a sentence.
If that sentence falls outside the Guidelines range, the court
should explain its reasons for the departure as required by 18
U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) (2000). Id. The sentence must be “within the
statutorily prescribed range and . . . reasonable.” Id. at 547.
As Lecadre raises no other issues on appeal, we affirm
his conviction and vacate the sentence imposed by the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --