UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT GARY CRAIGO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that its prior decision should be modified to vacate Part II-B and affirm the district court's sentence, applying the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Dunnigan.
The court had previously affirmed a conviction but remanded for resentencing. The Supreme Court later reversed a related decision, requiring modificat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
[*1087] ORDER
WIDENER, Circuit Judge.
On February 24, 1992, we stayed issuance of our mandate in this case, upon motion of the United States, but the United States did not file a petition for certiorari so our decision became final. As noted, however, our mandate had been stayed.
On May 4, 1992, the Supreme Court reversed our decision in United States v. Dunnigan, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993) which would have the effect of requiring a modification of our opinion in this ease. Our opinion affirmed Crai-go’s conviction but remanded for resentenc-ing in the light of our then controlling opinion in United States v. Dunnigan, 944 F. 2d 178 (4th Cir.1991).
Our actions in this case are now controlled by Alphin v. Henson, 552 F. 2d 1033 (4th Cir.1977) which holds that in circumstances just like these, the stay of our mandate leaves our judgment within the control of this court.
We are of opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Dunnigan, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993) should be applied to this case. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dun-nigan is consistent with the decision of the district court which is here under review.
It is accordingly ADJUDGED and ORDERED that Part II-B of our decision in this case, decided February 3,1992, 956 F. 2d 65, shall be, and it hereby is, vacated.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the sentence of the district court appealed from shall be, and it hereby is, affirmed.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that our decision in this case of February 3, 1992 shall be, and it hereby is, modified as set forth in this order; otherwise, it remains in full force and effect.
With the concurrences of SPROUSE and WARD, JJ.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1993)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 944 F.2d 178 (4th Cir. 1991)
- Alphin v. Henson, 552 F.2d 1033 (4th Cir. 1977)
- United States v. Craigo, 956 F.2d 65 (4th Cir. 1992)