Case Citator › United States v. Pineiro

United States v. Pineiro

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Vacated
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
377 F.3d 464
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
59 of 59
Citing cases (total)
59
Treatment dates
2004–2005
Vacated
This decision was vacated (set aside), by a higher court or by the same court on rehearing, so it has no force as precedent. The history below says what replaced it. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment in United States v. Pineiro for reconsideration after United States v. Booker. On remand, the Fifth Circuit vacated Pineiro's sentence and ordered resentencing while retaining its original preservation ruling.
More on how this was screened

All 59 flagged citations have been read. The Supreme Court's order and a separate earlier decision declining to follow Pineiro are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

59 later cases cite United States v. Pineiro; 59 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on United States v. Pineiro?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Vacated

  • The Supreme Court vacated Pineiro's judgment and remanded for reconsideration after Booker.

    Pineiro v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 377 F. 3d 464; Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, ante, p. 220.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The Seventh Circuit declined to follow Pineiro’s holding that Blakely did not invalidate the federal Sentencing Guidelines, instead applying its own Booker decision to vacate the judicially enhanced sentences and remand for resentencing.

    United States v. Ward · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · filed

    but see United States v. Pineiro, 2004 WL 1543170 (5th Cir. July 12, 2004) (addressing this issue but holding that Blakely should not be read to invalidate the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines). Under Blakely as interpreted in Booker, a defendant has the right to have a jury decide factual issues that will increase the defendant’s sentence. As Booker holds, the Guidelines’s contrary assertion that a district judge may make such factual determinations based upon the preponderance of the evidence runs afoul of the Sixth Amendment. Thus, in light of the analysis set forth in Booker, we remand these cases to the district court for resentencing.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Pineiro and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace