## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e1,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. D A R R E L L D E A N P R O W S , al so kn ow n as D arr el l D . P row s, al so kn ow n as D . D ean P row s, D efe ndant- A ppel l ee. UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. D A R R E L L D E A N P R O W S , al so kn ow n as D arr el l D . P row s, al so kn ow n as D . D ean P row s, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N os . 05- 4164

N o. 05- 4242

A ppeal s from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t he D i s t r i c t of

U t ah ( D . C . N os . 2: 04- C R - 102- B SJ and 2: 05- C V - 494- B SJ) D arr el l D . Pr ow s , fi l ed a br i ef pr o s e. M adel i ne S. C ohen, A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe nder , D enver , C ol or ado and Scot tK ei t h W i l s on, A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe nder , Sal tL ake Ci ty , U t ah2

( Ra ymo n d P . M o o r e , F e d e r a l P u b l i c De fe n d e r , De n v e r , Co l o r a d o , a n d S t e v e n B. K il lpac k , F ed era l Pu b li c D efen d er, Sa ltL ak e C ity , U tah w ith them o n the b ri efs), fo r D e fe n d a n t. A ndr ew A . V ogtand Suneet a H azr a, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A tt orney s ( W i l l i am J . L eone, U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , w i th them on t he br i efs ) , D enver , C ol or ado, for Pl ai nt i ff. B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , B AL DO CK and KELLY , C i rcui tJudg es. KELLY , C i r cui tJ udge. W e have cons ol i dat ed thes e appe al s forboth ar gum entand di s pos i t i on. I n 05- 4164, t he governm entappea l s t he s ent ence i m pos ed upon D efe ndant - A ppel l ee D arr el l D ean Pr ow s fol l ow i ng M r . Pr ow s ’ convi ct i on bya j ur yon tw o count s of m a il fra u d u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 1 . T h e d istric t co u rt se n ten c e d M r. P ro w s to for t y - one mont hs i m pr i s onm ent , buts t ay ed exe cut i on of thats ent ence , and i ns t ead p lac e d h im o n fiv e y e a rs p ro b a tio n . T h e d istric t co u rt a lso o rd e re d M r. P ro w s to pay$100, 000 i n r es t i tut i on. Fi nal l y , upon compl i ance w i th the t erm s and condi t i ons of pr obat i on, t he cus t odi al s ent ence of forty - one mont hs w oul d be vaca t ed. T he governm entr ai s es t hr ee a r gum ent s on i t s appea l : ( 1) t he s us pended exec ut i on of M r . Pr ow s ’ s ent ence i s contr aryt o l aw beca us e the 1984 Sent enci ng R efo rm A ct rep ea led th e p ri o r st atuto ryau tho ri tyto su sp en d sen tenc es; (2) M r. Pr ow s w as convi ct ed of a cl as s B fel onyand ther efor e i s notent i t l ed t o pr obat i on3

u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 6 1 (a )(1 ); a n d (3 ) th e d istric t co u rt’s s e n ten c e is u n re a so n a b le u n d e r U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r, 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). In 0 5 -4 2 4 2 , M r. P ro w s, fo llo w in g th e g ra n t o f a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili ty ( C O A ) byt hi s cour t , appea l s s eeki ng r ever s al of the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s or der di s m i s s i ng hi s m ot i on t o vaca t e, s etas i de, orcorr ecthi s fede r al s ent ence pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. I n hi s m ot i on, the s ol e bas i s forr el i ef i s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el . T he di s tr i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed the mot i on w i thout p rejud ice, b ec au se it w as p rem ature an d n o t sign ed b y co u n sel. T h is co u rt gr ant ed M r . Pr ow s a C O A on t w o i s s ues : ( 1) w hetherhi s m ot i on w as pr ematur e; a n d (2 ) w h e th e r h e w a s re q u ir e d to h a v e h is c o u n s e l o f re c o rd s ig n h is m o tio n . O urj ur i s di ct i on overt hes e appe al s ar i s es under18 U . S. C . § 3742( b) and 28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253( a) . W e r emand forr es ent enci ng, and w e r ever s e the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of M r . Pr ow s ’ § 2255 m ot i on. Backg r ound I n 1985, M r . Pr ow s w as convi ct ed on drug tr aff i cki ng char ges i n the N or t hern D i s t r i ctof Fl or i da and w as s ent ence d t o tw enty - fi ve y ear s i n pr i s on and or der ed t o paya $125, 000 fi ne. M r . Pr ow s w as r el eas ed i n 1993, w her eupon the U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney ’ s offi ce fort he N or thern D i s tr i ctof Fl or i da per fec t ed the j udgm entagai ns tM r . Pr ow s byfi l i ng a j udgm entl i en i n Sal tL ake Count y , U t ah, for$125, 000. M r . Pr ow s w as underpar ol e s upervi s i on unt i l 2000, and w hen the4

s upervi s i on ended, he w as s t i l l l i abl e forappr oxi m at el y$115, 838. 04. I n 1998, M r. P ro w s o b tain e d a lo a n a n d m o rtg a g e fo r th e p u rp o se o f p u rc h a sin g a h o m e in Sal tL ake Ci t y . W hen the t i t l e companydi s cover ed an out s t andi ng not i ce of l i en a g a in st h im th a t h a d b e e n filed b yth e g o v e rn m e n t, M r. P ro w s a p p a re n tly i n fo r me d t h e t i t l e c o mp a n yt h r o u g h a s i g n e d a ffi d a v i tth a th e wa s n o tth e s a me per s on named t her ei n. T he t i t l e company , abs entanyaddi t i onal ver i fi cat i on, a c c e p te d M r. P ro w s ’ s to ry. M r . Pr ow s “s ucce s s ful l y ” ut i l i zed thi s s ame st or ya fe w m or e t i m es – once to re fin a n c e h is h o u se , the n a g a in to b u yo u t a c o -re sid e n t, an d las tlyto co n so li d ate o ther finan cial ob li g ati o n s. T h e g o v ern m en t disco v ere d that M r. P ro w s h a d p u rc h a se d a h o m e , an d re c o g n ize d th a t it s ju d g m e n t li e n h a d p rio rity as agai ns tt he mort gage c om pany . O n February18, 2004, M r . Pr ow s w as named in a fo u r-c o u n t in d ictm e n t ch a rg in g fa lse sta tem e n ts to a fin a n c ial in stitu tio n in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1014, and thr ee c ount s of m ai l fr aud i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1341. T w o count s of the i ndi ctm entw er e di s m i s s ed bythe courtupon M r . Pr ow s ’ m ot i on. F o llo w in g a ju rytrial, M r. P ro w s w a s c o n v icte d o f tw o c o u n ts o f

m a il fr aud. A ft ers ever al s ent enci ng hear i ngs , and the r ece i ptof num er ous m emora nda bybot h part i es , t he di s t r i ctcour tdeci ded t o “tryan expe r i m ent , ” s ee I A pl t . A pp. at226, and s ent ence d M r . Pr ow s as i ndi cat ed above . O n appea l , the governm ent cont ends t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed bec aus e court s can no l ongers t aythe5

execu t i on of sen t ences, and t hat because M r. P row s’ con vict i on s i nclude a clas s B fel ony , pr obat i on i s nota s ent enci ng opt i on. I n addi t i on, the governm entar gues t hatunderB ooker , t he s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e. T he part i es agr ee thata r emand i s r equ i red, and w e t hu s decl i ne to add res s the o ther i ssues.

D i s cus s i on A . 05- 4164 W e r evi ew t he l egal i t yof a s ent ence de novo. U ni t ed St at es v. Pr i ce, 75 F. 3d 1440, 1446 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) . A s an i ni t i al m at t er , w e not e thatt he part i es ag ree that the d istri ct co u rtis w ith o u t auth o ri tyto staythe e x ec u ti o n o f M r. P r o ws ’ s e n t e n c e . S e e 0 5 - 4 1 6 4 Ap l t . Br . a t8 ; 0 5 - 4 1 6 4 Ap l e e . Br . a t6 . W e c o me t o t he s ame concl us i on beca us e the 1984 Sent enci ng R eform A ctr epea l ed the pri or st atutoryauthori t yt o st aysent ences. A s such, t he d i stri ctcou rtm ust re s e n te n c e M r. P ro w s . O n r emand, i tw i l l be i ncumbentupon the di s tr i ctcourtt o det erm i ne w hetherM r . Pr ow s i s el i gi bl e forpr obat i on i f i ti nt ends t o r es ent ence i n a manner s i m i l art o t he or i gi nal s ent ence . T he governm entar gues t hatM r . Pr ow s w as convi ct ed on one c ountof m ai l fr aud affec t i ng a fi nanci al i ns t i tut i on, and the s t a tu t o r yp e n a l t yfo rs u c h a c r i me e x t e n d s t o t h i r tyy e a r s i n p r i s o n , s e e 1 8 U. S . C. § 1341. A ccor di ng t o t he governm ent , t hen, i tfol l ow s t hatM r . Pr ow s has beenT he s t atut or ym axi m um w as amended i n 2002 t o ext end t o t en y ear s . 18 1 U . S. C . § 1341. 6 convi ct ed of a cl as s B fel onyunder18 U . S. C . § 3561( a) ( 1) and i s i nel i gi bl e for p ro b a tio n . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 9 (a )(2 ) (o ffe n se is c las sified a s a C las s B fe lo n yif m ax im u m term o f im p ri so n m en t auth o ri ze d is tw en tyfiv e y ea rs or m o re). M r. Pr ow s ar gues t hathe w as onl yconvi ct ed of tw o count s of s i m pl e mai l fr aud, and t hatbeca us e as of the t i m e of hi s offe ns e conduc tthe s t atut orym axi m um fors uch si m ple fraud w as on l y fi ve y ears , t hat he w as onlycon vict ed o f t w o C l ass D 1 fe l o n i e s , a n d t h a tt h e r e i s n o s t a tu t o rye x c l u s i o n f r o m p r o b a t i o n . S e e 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 9 (a )( 4 ) ( d e fin in g C la s s D fe lo n ie s ). T h e a p p e n d ix f

iled in th is c a se d o e s n o t co n tain th e m a ter ials n e c e ss a ryto rev iew this i ssu e. W h il e the P re-S en tenc e R ep o rtsee m s to ind icate tha t M r. Pr ow s w as convi ct ed of tw o count s of m ai l fr aud on a f i nanci al i ns t i tut i on bas ed o n t h e t i me o f

i mp r i s o n me n ts u g g e s t e d , s e e I I Ap l t . Ap p . a t1 , th e r e wa s a ts o me poi ntpr i ort o t he s ubm i s s i on of the ca s e t o the j ur yan amendm entt o the ind ict m en t, an d w e a re u n ab le t o p ron o u n ce w ith ce rt aintyo n w h ich c o u n ts M r. Pr ow s w as actual l yconvi ct ed bec aus e the governm ent , forr eas ons qui t e bey ond o u r ke n , d ec ided to su p p lyu s w ith n eith er tha t am en d ed ind ict m en t no r th e jury in s tru c tio n s . C o n s e q u e n tly, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s h a ll h a v e to re s o lv e th is is s u e . W e do obs erve thatt he governm ent , as t he appe l l ant , had the r es pons i bi l i tyt o “fi l e an ap p en d ix su ffici en t fo r co n side ri n g an d d ec iding the issu es o n ap p ea l. ” 1 0 th C ir .7

R . 3 0 .1 (A )( 1 ). B . 05- 4242 O n hi s appea l , M r . Pr ow s ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n di s m i s s i ng hi s m ot i on as pr ematur e, and thatan att orneys i gnatur e i s notr equi r ed w hen a d e fe n d a n t is u n re p re se n ted , as h e e ffe c tiv e lyw a s a t th e tim e o f th e fili n g o f

h is § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n . T h e g o v ern m en t con tend s tha t M r. P row s’ m o ti o n is prem ature beca us e i tfi l ed a di r ectappea l fr om the s ent ence i m pos ed bythe di s tr i ctcour t , 18 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (b ), an d th u s th e d istric t co u rt is w ith o u t ju risd ictio n to c o n d u c t a h e a rin g o n th e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . T h e g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s th a t th e re lief so u g h t in ei t herpr ocee di ng i s a vac at i on of the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s j udgm ent . Fur ther , the governm entar gues t hatM r . Pr ow s w as r equi r ed t o have hi s § 2255 m ot i on s i gned b yh is c o u n s e l o f

re c o rd . T he g ov ernm ent fi rs tassert s that M r. P row s’ con vict i on i s not fi nal because t he governm ent ’ s di r ectappea l w as t i m el yand i s s t i l l pendi ng. I n the cont extof t he one- y earl i m i t at i on per i od forfi l i ng a § 2255 mot i on, a cr i m i nal convi ct i on becomes fi nal w hen the Supr eme C our taff i r m s i ton di r ectr evi ew , deni es ce rt iorari, o r (i n the a b sen ce o f a ce rt iorari pe ti ti o n ) th e ti m e fo r fil ing a c erti o rari pet i t i on expi r es . C l ayv. U ni t ed St at es , 537 U . S. 522, 527 ( 2003) . I f the defe ndantdoes notfi l e an a ppeal , the cr i m i nal convi ct i on becomes fi nal upon t he expi r at i on of the t i m e i n w hi ch t o t ake a di r ectcr i m i nal appea l . M os hi erv. U n it ed S tat es, 40 2 F . 3 d 1 1 6 , 1 1 8 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).8

N o tw ith sta n d in g th e a b o v e c o n c e p t o f fin a lity , as w e d isc u ss b e lo w , the re is no j ur i s di ct i onal barr i ert o a di s t r i ctcour tent er t ai ni ng a § 2255 mot i on w hi l e a d ir ec t app ea l i s p en d ing , tho u g h itsh o u ld o n lyd o so in ex tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance s gi ven the pot ent i al forconfl i ctw i th the di r ectappea l . T hat pot ent i al forconfl i ctdoes notappea rt o exi s ti n thi s cas e–her e, the onl yavenue M r . Pr ow s has forhi s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m i s thr ough col l at er al r el i ef, s ee M as s ar o v. U ni t ed St at es , 538 U . S. 500, 504 ( 2003) , and he doe s nots eek the sa m e re lief

in a n yd ire c t ap p e a l. T her e i s no ques t i on t hatM r . Pr ow ’ s s ent ence i s a fi nal or dervi s - a- vi s the d is tr ic t c o u rt , a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t is a p p e a lin g it p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (b ). Si m i l ar l y , t her e i s no ques t i on t hatthe or derdi s m i s s i ng M r . Pr ow s ’ § 2255 m ot i on i s fi nal , and appe al abl e. See Landm ark L and C o. of O kl a. , I nc. v. B uchana n, 874 F. 2d 717, 720 ( 10th C i r . 1989) ( t aki ng a pr act i cal appr oach a nd n o tin g th a t th e d ism iss a l o f a c o m p lain t “b a se d u p o n a d e fe c t th a t cannotbe cur ed by am endm enti s an appe al abl e or der ”) ( emphasi s s uppl i ed) , abr ogat ed on other gr ounds by , Feder al L ands L egal C ons or t i um ex r el . R obartE s t at e v. U ni t ed S ta te s , 1 9 5 F .3 d 1 1 9 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W e p la in ly h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n . Fur t herm or e, w e agr ee w i th M r . Pr ow s thatther e ar e ca s es w her e thi s dual pos tur e has occurr ed. See e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. Pel ul l o, 399 F. 3d 197, 202 ( 3d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e g o v e rn me n t ’ s a p p e a l u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3731 and Pel ul l o’ s appea l under28 U . S. C . §§ 2253, 2255. ”) ; Pfei ffe rv. U ni t ed9

St at es , 234 F. 3d 1262, *2 ( 2d C i r . 2000) ( unpubl i s hed) ( “The G overnm ent appea l ed the r educe d s ent ence , and Pfei ffe rfi l ed a mot i on pur s uantt o Sect i on 2255 s eeki ng a new t r i al and cl ai m i ng t hathi s tr i al couns el . . . had a c onfl i ctof i nt er es t . ”) . A l t hough a not i ce of appea l gener al l ydi ves t s a di s tr i ctcour tof ju risd ictio n o v e r th e iss u e s o n a p p e a l, th e d istric t co u rt re tain s ju risd ictio n to cons i dercert ai n col l at er al m att er s . L anca s t erv. I ndepende ntSch. D i s t . N o. 5, 149 F. 3d 1228, 1237 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) ( s anct i ons ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. M ey er s , 95 F. 3d 14 75 , 14 89 n. 6 ( 10 t h Ci r . 19 96 ) ( r e l e a s e pe nd i ng a pp e a l ) ; Fe d. R. A pp . P. 4 (b )( 5 ) ( m o tio n fo r c o rr e c tio n o f s e n te n c e u n d e r F e d . R . C ri m . P . 3 5 (a )) . A ddi t i onal l y , w e fi nd i tm or e than a l i t t l e pec ul i art o announce a rul e w her ebyt he g o v e rn m e n t it se lf

c a n w ith d ra w ju risd ictio n f ro m th e d istric t co u rt b yfili n g , as it h a s h e re , a d ire c t ap p e a l after a defendantfi l es a § 2255 mot i on and a not i ce of a p p e a l is n o t filed b yth e d e fe n d a n t. M or eover , ours i s t erci r cui t s have made i tabundant l ycl earthat“ther e i s no ju ris d ictio n a l bart o a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s adj udi cat i on of a § 2255 mot i on dur i ng t he p en d en cyo f a d ir ec t app ea l. ” U n it ed S tat es v . O u ten, 28 6 F . 3 d 6 2 2 , 6 3 2 (2d C ir . 2002) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ; s ee a l s o D er ango v. U ni t ed St at es , 864 F. 2d 520, 5 2 2 (7th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ); U n it ed S tat es v . T ay lor, 6 4 8 F . 2 d 5 6 5 , 5 7 2 (9th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ); W om ack v. U ni t ed St at es , 395 F. 2d 630, 631 ( D . C . C i r . 1968) . A s the Second C i r cui tcorr ect l ynot ed, t he r el evantconce rn w i th dual pr ocee di ngs i s notone of ju ri s d ic tio n , b u t r a th e r o n e o f ju d ic ia l e c o n o m y . O u te n , 2 8 6 F .3 d a t 6 3 2 .10

I ndeed, ourow n ci r cui thas hel d thatther e i s no i ps o fac t o bart o a di s tr i ct c o u rt a dju d ica tio n o f

a § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n d u rin g th e p e n d e n c yo f a d ire c t ap p e a l, par t i cul ar l yw her e “e xt r aor di naryci r cumst ance s ” exi s t . C ook, 997 F. 2d at1319; s ee a l s o R ul es G overni ng § 2255 Pr ocee di ngs forthe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C ou rt s, R ule 5, adv i sorycom m i t t ee no t e. W e t hink t hat s uch ci rcum st ances ex i st her e, es peci al l yi n l i ghtof the compl et e di chot om ybetw een the i s s ues r ai s ed by t he governm enton di r ectappea l and thos e r ai s ed byM r . Pr ow s i n hi s § 2255 mo t i o n , a s we l l a s t h e fa c tt h a tt h e g o v e rn me n tc o u l d e ffe c t i v e l yk e e p M r . P r o ws i n cu st od yfor y ears w hil e i texerci ses i t s appell at e ri gh t s. T he governm entnextar gues thatbot h the di r ectappea l and the col l at er al act i on cannotpr ocee d s i m ul t aneous l y . I n s uppor t , the governm entr el i es upon s i tuat i ons w her e the def endanthas s oughtt o pur s ue mul t i pl e ac t i ons , i . e. , both a di r ectappea l and a c ol l at er al pr ocee di ng. See e. g. , C ook, 997 F. 2d at1318- 19 ( s t at i ng gener al rul e thata defendantm aynots i m ul t aneous l ypur s ue di r ectand col l at er al r el i ef) . T he r eas on fors uch a rul e i n thos e ci r cumst ance s i s obvi ous – § 2255 cannotdo s ervi ce fori s s ues thatcan be r ai s ed on di r ectappea l . B uther e, t he s ent enci ng appea l of the governm ent , cont endi ng t hatthe di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n s us pendi ng t he s ent ence and gr ant i ng pr obat i on, r ai s es a compl et el ydi ffe r ent and non- over l appi ng i s s ue than thatr ai s ed byM r . Pr ow s i n the § 2255 mot i on – i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el . T o the ext entthatr es ol ut i on of the governm ent ’ s di r ectappea l di r ect l yi m pl i cat ed i s s ues cont ai ned i n the § 225511

m o tio n b a se d u p o n in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l, a d istric t co u rt c o u ld e xe r c i s e i t s di s c r e t i on t o s t a yt he § 2 25 5 mot i on . Cf. Rhi ne s v. W e be r , 54 4 U. S. 269 ( 2005) ( di s t r i ctcour thas di s cr et i on t o s t ay§ 2254 pr ocee di ng pendi ng e x h a u s tio n ). Fi nal l y , M r . Pr ow s w as notr equi r ed t o have hi s § 2255 m ot i on s i gned by c o u n s e l, b e c a u s e h e h a d n o n e , a t le a s t fo r t h is p u rp o s e , i.e ., filin g a § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . T hough t he governm entnot es t hatthe U t ah Feder al Publ i c D efe nderhad bee n appoi nt ed t o r epr es entM r . Pr ow s , nothi ng s ugges t s thatthe appoi nt m entext ended t o s uch r epr es ent at i on. See 18 U . S. C . § 3006A ( a) ( 2) ( b) ( al l ow i ng appoi nt m entof couns el i n § 2255 pr ocee di ng i n the i nt er es t s of j us t i ce) ; R ul es G overni ng § 2255 Pr ocee di ngs fort he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our t s , R ul e 8( c) ( r equi r i ng a p p o in tm e n t fo r e v id e n tiary he a rin g ). In d e e d , the re is n o rig h t to c o u n se l in col l at er al pr ocee di ngs , Penns y l vani a v. Fi nl ey , 481 U . S. 551, 555 ( 1987) , and as s uch, a pr o s e pet i t i on s uffi ces i n thi s cont ext . L as t l y , t o r equi r e M r . Pr ow s ’ tr i al couns el t o s i gn t hi s pet i t i on w oul d effectan end- run on the not i on t hats uch cl ai m s ar e, as a pr act i cal m att er , bett ers ui t ed forcol l at er al pr ocee di ngs . See M as s ar o, 538 U . S. at504- 505. R E M A N D E D forR E SE N T E N C I N G . T he di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce of t h e § 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n i s RE VE RS E D.