United States of America v. Kenyatta Pinkston, a/k/a Yatta

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-4783
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KENYATTA PINKSTON, a/k/a Yatta
Appellant
(D.C. Crim. No. 03-cr-00342-2)
No. 03-4784
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MAWULDA PINKSTON, a/k/a Sin,
Appellant
(D.C. Crim. No. 03-cr-00342-1)
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
District Judge: The Honorable Garrett E. Brown, Jr.
Argued: February 7, 2005
Before: BARRY, FUENTES, and BECKER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: March 9, 2005)

-- 1 of 4 --

2
R. Louis Gallagher, II, Esq. (Argued)
1487 State Highway 38 West
Hainesport, NJ 08036
Counsel for Appellant Kenyatta Pinkston
John S. Furlong, Esq. (Argued)
Furlong & Krasny
820 Bear Tavern Road
Mountain View Office Park, Suite 304
West Trenton, NJ 08628
Counsel for Appellant Mawalda Pinkston
Sabrina G. Comizzoli, Esq. (Argued)
George S. Leone, Esq.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Office of the United States Attorney
970 Broad Street
Room 700
Newark, NJ 07102
Counsel for Appellee
OPINION
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Mawulda Pinkston and Kenyatta Pinkston appeal from judgments of conviction
and sentence imposed following an eight-day bench trial before the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey. In broad summary, the Pinkstons were convicted of one

-- 2 of 4 --

3
count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than fifty
grams of crack cocaine and seven counts of distribution and possession with intent to
distribute either cocaine or crack cocaine, all in connection with the drug distribution
business they operated in Trenton, New Jersey. Mawulda Pinkston was sentenced to 210
months incarceration and Kenyatta Pinkston was sentenced to 235 months incarceration.
The government accurately and fairly succinctly described what we have before us
on these appeals.
“[Appellants’] brief contains fourteen points, many of which, in turn,
contain a multitude of undeveloped subclaims and allegations arising from
inferences drawn in [appellants’] favor. Several of the points raised do not
contain a clear statement of [appellants’] appellate contentions, reasons
supporting those contentions, citations to authorities, or citations to the
record below to demonstrate that [appellants] had raised the issue in the
District Court in the first instance. Indeed, several Argument Points in
[appellants’] brief contain only two sentences and a citation to the
arguments [appellants] raised below.
Appellee’s Br. at 20-21.
We have, nonetheless, carefully considered each of the numerous contentions
raised by appellants and we have heard extensive oral argument on these appeals. We are
convinced that these contentions are without merit and, therefore, that the judgments of
conviction should be affirmed.
Because, however, appellants at least arguably raise a challenge to their sentences
under United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), and because we have
determined that any such issues are best determined by the District Court in the first

-- 3 of 4 --

4
instance, we will vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing in accordance with
Booker.
The judgments of conviction will be affirmed, the sentences will be vacated, and
this matter will be remanded to the District Court for resentencing.

-- 4 of 4 --