Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-25-2003 USA v. Fuentes Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 01-4338 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "USA v. Fuentes" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 722. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/722 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.  NOT PRECEDENTIAL IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 01-4338 ________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LUIS FUENTES a/k/a LUIS CATANO a/k/a LOUIE a/k/a LUISITO Luis Fuentes, Appellant __________________ On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 94-cr-00192-14) District Judge: Honorable Herbert J. Hutton _______________________________________ Submitted March 13, 2003 Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Before: BECKER, Chief Judge, Rendell and Ambro Circuit Judges. (Filed: March 25, 2003) _______________________  OPINION _______________________ BECKER, Chief Judge. This is an appeal by defendant Luis Fuentes from an order revoking his supervised release. Fuentes argues that the order should be revoked and the consequent sentence be revisited because the District Court erred in failing to recognize its discretion to impose a concurrent sentence for a violation of supervised release under United States Sentencing Guidelines Section 7B1.3(f). In response, the government states (in its brief) that [i]t is unclear from the record whether the district court[,] in imposing a sentence for a violation of supervised release which was consecutive to a term for the offense which gave rise to the violation, understood its discretion to impose a concurrent sentence. This, this Court may wish to remand the matter for clarification of the District Court’s reasoning. Appellee’s Brief at 7. The government then argues, however, that: (1) the sentence for violation of supervised release may be affirmed on the present record because Fuentes did not object at sentencing to the imposition of a consecutive sentence; (2) review is therefore for plain error; (3) there was none; and (4) this Court has discretion whether to correct the error. However, we think that the better course is to remand for clarification. Accordingly the judgment of sentence will be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. 2 TO THE CLERK: Please file the foregoing opinion. BY THE COURT: /s/ Edward R. Becker Chief Judge 3