393 F.3d 1354

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Mahmoud ELDICK, Defendant-Appellant.

Fred Haddad, Haddad & Hester, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Terry Flynn, E. Bryan Wilson, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (No. 02-00038-CR-1-MMP); Maurice M. Paul, Judge.

Before BIRCH, KRAVITCH and CUDAHY*, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Based upon the concessions and agreement of counsel at oral argument and in their briefs, we VACATE Eldick's sentence and REMAND for re-sentencing. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D);1 United States v. Yost, 185 F.3d 1178, 1181 (11th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1108, 120 S.Ct. 1960, 146 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000) ("... we have held that when we vacate a sentence and remand for re-sentencing, the sentence becomes void in its entirety and the district court is free to revisit any rulings it made at the initial sentencing."); United States v. Stinson, 97 F.3d 466, 469 (11th Cir.1996) ("A criminal sentence is a package of sanctions that the district court utilizes to effectuate its sentencing intent consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines.").

Notes:

Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation

In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated that the drug involved in Count Two was a Schedule 3 opiate, which carried a five-year statutory maximum. The defendant was sentenced on the basis of the presentence report which erroneously calculated the sentence on Count Two as if the drug was a Schedule 2 opiate, which carries a 20-year statutory maximum. The sentence rendered was plain error because it exceeded the statutory maximum