United States of America v. NICHOLAS GRASS a/k/a NICKY GRASSO Nicholas Grass

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 02-2994
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
NICHOLAS GRASS
a/k/a
NICKY GRASSO
Nicholas Grass,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 00-cr-00120-1)
District Judge: Hon. Eduardo C. Robreno
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 8, 2004
Decided March 30, 2004
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States
January 24, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, NYGAARD, Circuit Judges and OBERDORFER, District Judge*
* Hon. Louis F. Oberdorfer, United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
(Filed: March 17, 2005)
OPINION
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
This matter is before us on remand by the United States Supreme Court. This
court, by opinion filed March 30, 2004, affirmed the District Court’s judgment of
conviction and sentence. On January 24, 2005, the Supreme Court granted the motion of
Petitioner Nicholas Grass a/k/a Nicky Grasso for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and
granted his petition for writ of certiorari. The Court vacated the judgment of this court
and remanded the case to this court for further consideration in light of Booker v. United
States, 125 S. Ct. 738, 543 U.S. (2005). Counsel for Appellant, pursuant to the
opportunity afforded by this court, has requested that we remand the matter to the District
Court for resentencing.
Upon further consideration as directed by the Supreme Court, we reaffirm all
portions of our prior decision with respect to the conviction, including our conclusions
that there was sufficient evidence to support Grass’ conviction for conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine, that Grass was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel
when the District Court disqualified his chosen attorney, and that Grass was not
prejudiced by the mistaken delivery of a draft copy of the jury’s instructions during
deliberations. On the other hand, we will vacate that portion of our judgment that

-- 2 of 3 --

affirmed the judgment of sentence and remand to the District Court for reconsideration
and, if that court deems it appropriate, for resentencing in light of Booker v. United
States, 125 S. Ct. 738, 543 U.S. (2005).
__________________________

-- 3 of 3 --