United States of America v. James Edward Gapinski

The Honorable Karl S. Forester, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of*
Kentucky, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 07a0423n.06
Filed: June 20, 2007
No. 05-1166
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAMES EDWARD GAPINSKI,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
O P I N I O N
Before: MOORE and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; FORESTER, District Judge.*
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant James E. Gapinski
pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to manufacture more than 100 marijuana plants, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(vii). He now appeals his 156-month
sentence, which the district court imposed before the Supreme Court decided United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Gapinski has withdrawn his request for oral argument, Reply Br. at
ii, and the government never requested oral argument. We accordingly conclude that this case is
amenable to disposition without oral argument.
Both parties agree that the district court’s pre-Booker sentence on December 22, 2004,
applying the United States Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, was erroneous. The district court

-- 1 of 2 --

2
also announced a 120-month “alternate sentence,” which the district court intended to impose in the
event that the Sentencing Guidelines did not apply. Joint Appendix at 71. We now know that
Booker held that the Sentencing Guidelines do apply, but are only advisory and are only one of the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that the district court must consider. Accordingly, the parties agree that
there is no mechanism by which the “alternate sentence” can be put into place, and that Gapinski
therefore is entitled to resentencing.
We concur with the parties’ position, and accordingly VACATE Gapinski’s sentence and
REMAND the case to the district court for a new sentencing hearing and resentencing in accordance
with Booker and its progeny, and in light of any other relevant factors.

-- 2 of 2 --