Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20331/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20331-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kolawole Monday Onenese
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20331

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

KOLAWOLE MONDAY ONENESE,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-538

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kolawole Monday Onenese appeals the 61-month, within-Guidelines 

sentence imposed by the district court on remand following this court’s opinion 

in United States v. Onenese, 542 F. App’x 427 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). The 

district court’s interpretation of the scope of this court’s remand order is a 

question of law that is reviewed de novo.1 “The only issues on remand properly 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1 See United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 320 (5th Cir. 2004).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 13, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-20331 Document: 00512968613 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2015
No. 14-20331

before the district court are those issues arising out of the correction of the

sentence ordered by this court.”2

As our remand was based upon our determination that a four-level 

increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) was not adequately supported 

by the record,3 Onenese’s challenges to the calculations of restitution and 

amount of intended loss go beyond the scope of our remand and were therefore 

barred from consideration by the district court.4 Although Onenese contends 

that Marmolejo was incorrectly decided, we are bound to follow it “[a]bsent an 

intervening Supreme Court or en banc decision or a change in statutory law.”5

AFFIRMED.

 

2 United States v. Marmolejo, 139 F.3d 528, 531 (5th Cir. 1998).

3 Onenese, 542 F. App’x at 429-30.

4 See Lee, 358 F. 3d at 320-21; Marmolejo 139 F.3d at 531.

5 United States v. Treft, 447 F.3d 421, 425 (5th Cir. 2006).

2

 

Case: 14-20331 Document: 00512968613 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2015