Narrative Opinion Summary
Defendant-Appellant James Sabatino’s conviction for mail and wire fraud and identity theft was affirmed by this court on December 9, 2004. Following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, Sabatino, currently serving concurrent sentences of 60 months and 137 months respectively, sought a remand for resentencing. The court initially granted this remand but later the government moved to vacate the order, citing inconsistencies with prior case law. Sabatino opposed this motion, expressing a desire to withdraw his guilty plea or to be resentenced. However, his request to withdraw the guilty plea was denied based on the precedent set in United States v. Roque, and the request for a Crosby remand was also denied in light of United States v. Morgan and United States v. Haynes. Consequently, the court reaffirmed its earlier decision, vacated the remand order of May 5, 2005, and directed the mandate to issue.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Convictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the conviction of James Sabatino for mail and wire fraud and identity theft based on previous judicial findings.
Reasoning: Defendant-Appellant James Sabatino’s conviction for mail and wire fraud and identity theft was affirmed by this court on December 9, 2004.
Denial of Crosby Remandsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied Sabatino's request for a Crosby remand, citing consistency with previous case law.
Reasoning: The request for a Crosby remand was also denied in light of United States v. Morgan and United States v. Haynes.
Resentencing Following United States v. Bookersubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Sabatino sought a remand for resentencing following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, which the court initially granted but later vacated.
Reasoning: Following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, Sabatino, currently serving concurrent sentences of 60 months and 137 months respectively, sought a remand for resentencing.
Vacating of Remand Ordersubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court vacated its earlier remand order due to inconsistencies with prior case law and directed the mandate to issue.
Reasoning: Consequently, the court reaffirmed its earlier decision, vacated the remand order of May 5, 2005, and directed the mandate to issue.
Withdrawal of Guilty Pleasubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The request by Sabatino to withdraw his guilty plea was denied based on established precedent.
Reasoning: However, his request to withdraw the guilty plea was denied based on the precedent set in United States v. Roque.