Appellate Law

CA1: First remands for a real resentencing when mandate not followed

By S. COTUS

US v. Pena-Gonzalez, No. 05-1402.  This case was first before the court in United States v. Rodríguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 32 (1st Cir. 2004) when it remanded for re-sentencing.  The District Court didn?t hold a sentencing hearing, and instead it ?trimmed the original judgment without sentencing him anew? as the government told it to.  (This matters because Booker might allow the defendant to escape a life sentence).

But, the First resolves the issue on the ?law of the case? doctrine (the ?mandate rule?) part of it, and holds that the District Court didn?t really take the letter and spirit of the mandate seriously, and the District Court should have read the mandate ?like a statute.? 

The First then points out that the prosecution ? as much as the District Court ? is at fault, because it seems to have tricked the court into thinking that it had made a finding (that the crime was in furtherance of a drug conspiracy) that would subject him to life sentence. The First says that this trick deprived the defendant of his ability to allocute at sentencing which is ?scared.?

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on May 07, 2008 (boomark / email).