context: Where, as here, the evidence points to no clear conclusion on appellant's alleged participation, we will not infer it. Rather, the case must be remanded to allow the trial judge to make appropriate findings that are susceptible to appellate review should the appellant again seek review in this court.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 242 F.3d 410, 410
citation_a.parenthetical: remanding case for district court to determine applicability of sentencing enhancement because "on the record before us we cannot conclude with confidence that it employed the correct legal standard in applying the ... enhancement"
citation_a.sentence: See McCoy, 242 F.3d at 410 (remanding case for district court to determine applicability of sentencing enhancement because “on the record before us we cannot conclude with confidence that it employed the correct legal standard in applying the ... enhancement”); cf. United States v. Hutchinson, 268 F.3d 1117, 1118 (D.C.Cir.2001) (remanding case for further factfinding, because the trial judge had failed to make findings of fact essential to decide the issue on review).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 268 F.3d 1117, 1118
citation_b.parenthetical: remanding case for further factfinding, because the trial judge had failed to make findings of fact essential to decide the issue on review
citation_b.sentence: See McCoy, 242 F.3d at 410 (remanding case for district court to determine applicability of sentencing enhancement because “on the record before us we cannot conclude with confidence that it employed the correct legal standard in applying the ... enhancement”); cf. United States v. Hutchinson, 268 F.3d 1117, 1118 (D.C.Cir.2001) (remanding case for further factfinding, because the trial judge had failed to make findings of fact essential to decide the issue on review).