USA v. Ware, No. 04-30830 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 9, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-30830 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EUGENE MATTHEW WARE, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:03-CR-50043-1 -------------------Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Eugene Matthew Ware appeals his sentence for having distributed five or more grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 841(a)(1). Ware contends that the district court erred under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), in attributing 45.8 grams of crack to him for sentencing purposes. Ware also argues that the district court erred by sentencing him under the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines regime that was held to be unconstitutional in Booker. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 04-30830 -2The Government argues, inter alia, that because Ware was sentenced in the middle of the applicable guideline range, the sentencing error was harmless. assertion. This court has rejected such an See United States v. Garza, 429 F.3d 165, 170-71 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1444 (2006). Moreover, the record in this case does not show that the district court would have imposed the same sentence under an advisory regime. Thus, the Government cannot bear its burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court s error was harmless. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 464 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Ware s sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. See id. at 466. Because we vacate Ware s sentence and remand for resentencing under an advisory guideline regime, we do not reach the other claim of sentencing error that Ware raises. See United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 377 n.62 (5th Cir. 2005). VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
