United States of America v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 2004 , to a twenty-four-month term of imprisonment to be…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5041
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ERIC ESTIMABLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CR-04-103)
Submitted: April 13, 2005 Decided: May 13, 2005
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Eric Estimable was convicted by a jury of one count of
interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 2312, 2 (2000). On November 10, 2004, the district
court sentenced Estimable, over his objection based upon Blakely v.
Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), to a twenty-four-month term of
imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release.
After Estimable filed his notice of appeal, the Supreme Court
decided United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The
Government has filed an unopposed motion to remand for resentencing
in light of the Booker decision.
We grant the motion for remand to allow the district
court to reconsider Estimable’s sentence in light of the Booker
decision. Estimable’s formal brief on appeal reveals that the
applicability of Booker is the only issue that he wishes to pursue
on appeal. Therefore, we affirm his conviction, vacate the
sentence imposed by the district court, and remand for
reconsideration of the sentence. 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

-- 2 of 2 --