In her appeal, Graham raises several sentencing issues. Specifically, she challenges the propriety of the district court’s (1) denying her a three-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) for acceptance of responsibility on the money laundering charges; (2) imposing a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(1) after concluding she knew or believed the laundered funds were the proceeds of distribution of cocaine or heroin; (3) imposing a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 after concluding she laundered at least $50,000; (4) imposing a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 after concluding she obstructed justice; and, (5) denying her a two-level decrease under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) for minor participant status.
Defendant argues that while the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum, the judicial fact-finding undertaken by the district court in determining her sentence violated the Sixth Amendment as determined in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). With the recent decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), it is necessary that we vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing. United States v. Barnett, ___ F.3d ___, No. 04-5252, 2005 WL 357015 (6th Cir. Feb. 16, 2005); United States v. Oliver, ___ F.3d ___, No. 03-2126, 2005 WL 233779 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2005); United States v. Bruce, ___ F.3d. ___, No. 03-3110, 2005 WL 241254 (6th Cir. Feb. 3, 2005).
Note to Judge Bunning: Bruce did not find it necessary to vacate and remand for resentencing. It was contrary to Oliver. Maybe a "cf." got deleted somewhere.