In United States v. Givens, No. 09-0765-cr, and United States v. Blue, No. 09-0219-cr (2d Cir. April 26, 2010), related cases, the circuit vacated two defendants’ sentences because the district court misinterpreted an ambiguous Regalado remand order and did not conduct a full resentencing.
United States v. Young, No. 09-1853-cr (2d Cir. April 22, 2010), is surely the tersest and most cryptic summary order yet. It provides, in its entirety, “On the basis of the record before us, including what we have learned at oral argument, we discern no error and therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.”
In United States v. Lorenzo, No. 08-3626-cr (2d Cir. April 12, 2010), the court held that the defendant was not eligible for a crack resentencing because his offense level was capped at thirty due to a mitigating role adjustment, and thus was not affected by the amended crack guideline.