A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

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

### F e b r u ary27,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. S H I R L E Y MA Y E R O L L O W, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 6072 ( D. C. No. 0 2 - CR- 0 8 - T) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e P O R F IL IO , BA LD OCK , and EBEL , C i rcui tJudg es.

A j ur yconvi ct ed Shi r l eyR ol l ow of cons pi r i ng t o pos s es s and di s tr i but e a l i s t ed che m i cal know i ng t hati tw oul d be manufactur ed i nt o a contr ol l ed su b sta n c e , an d o f

stru c tu rin g tra n sa c tio n s to e v a d e re p o rtin g re q u ire m e n ts in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( c) ( 2) and 31 U . S. C . § 5324( a) ( 3) . T he convi ct i ons ste m m e d f

ro m a lleg a tio n s th a t M s. R o llo w w a s in v o lv e d in a n ill icit sc h e m e to-2-

di s t r i but e ps eudoephe dr i ne, a pr ecur s ert o m ethamphet ami ne, w i thi n the U ni t ed St at es . T he di s tr i ctcour ts ent ence d M s . R ol l ow t o 180 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent fol l ow ed byt hr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, buta pane l of thi s cour tvaca t ed t hats ent ence and r emanded t o t he di s tr i ctcour tforr e- s ent enci ng i n l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). See Uni t ed Stat es v. R ol l ow , 146 F. A pp’ x 290, 294- 95 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . O n r emand, t he di s t r i ctcour tr educe d M s . R ol l ow ’ s s ent ence t o 160 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent fol l ow ed byt hr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. She now appea l s hers ent ence a s econd t i m e. W e affi r m t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s r evi s ed s ent ence . I . Backg r ound T he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or i gi nal s ent ence w as bas ed i n parton the pr e- s ent ence in v e stig a tio n re p o rt (P S R ). T h e P S R e sta b lish e d th a t M s. R o llo w c o n sp ire d to di s t r i but e 3, 438 ki l ogr ams of ps eudoephe dr i ne, a quant i tyt hat , undert he U ni t ed S ta te s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s (U S S G ), c a rr ie d a b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l o f 3 0 . See US S G § 2 D1 . 1 1 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . T o t h e b a s e o ffe n s e l e v e l , t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r ta d d e d t wo l evel s underU SSG § 3C 1. 1 aft erfi ndi ng thatM s . R ol l ow obs truct ed j us t i ce by l y i ng un de roa t h. The c ou r tt he n a dd e d a no the rt w o l e ve l s un de rU SSG § 3B 1. 1( c) beca us e i tfound thatM s . R ol l ow as s um ed a l eade r s hi p r ol e i n the cons pi r acy . A ccount i ng forM s . R ol l ow ’ s C r i m i nal H i s t oryC at egoryof I , t he di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i ned thathers ent enci ng r ange w as 151 t o 188 m onths . T he cour tacc or di ngl ys ent ence d M s . R ol l ow t o 180 m onths i n pr i s on.-3-

W h i l e M s . Ro l l o w’ s a p p e a l o f h e rs e n t e n c e wa s p e n d i n g , th e S u p r e me C our ti s s ued i t s deci s i on i n B ooker . B ookers ubs t ant i vel yhel d that“[a ] nyfac t ( ot hert han a pr i orconvi ct i on) w hi ch i s nece s s aryt o s uppor ta s ent ence exce edi ng the m ax im u m au tho ri ze d b ythe fac ts establishe d b ya p lea o f g u il tyo r a jury v e rd ict m u st b e a d m itt e d b yth e d e fe n d a n t o r p ro v e d to a ju ryb e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt . ” 543 U . S. at244. T he C our tw enton t o cr afta r emedyforthe fe der al s ent enci ng gui del i nes bys ever i ng the pr ovi s i ons of the gui del i nes thatm ade them m a n d a to ry, th e re b ym a k in g th e g u id e lin e s m e re ly ad v is o ry. S e e id . a t 2 4 5 . A ppl y i ng B ookert o M s . R ol l ow ’ s appea l , a pane l of thi s cour tdet erm i ned thather s ent ence w as uncons t i tut i onal beca us e i tw as bas ed on fi ndi ngs nei theradmi t t ed b yh e r n o r p ro v e n to a ju ry b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. R ol l ow , 146 F. A pp’ x at 294- 95. T hus , t he pane l r emanded the ca s e “w i th di r ect i on t hats he be r e- s ent ence d i n acc or d w i t h B ooker - Fanf an . ” Id. at295. O n r emand, t he di s t r i ctcour tcons trued the s cope of the r emand or deras ap p ly ing o n lyto the tw o sen tenc e e n h an ce m en ts. A fter a h ea ri n g , the c o u rt c o n su lted th e se n ten c in g g u id e lin e s a s a d v iso rya n d , fin d in g a m p le e v id e n c e to s us t ai n t he tw o fi ndi ngs t hatM s . R ol l ow obs truct ed j us t i ce a nd as s um ed a l eade r s hi p r ol e i n t he cons pi r acy , det erm i ned thatthe appr opr i at e s ent enci ng ra n g e re m a in e d 1 5 1 to 1 8 8 m o n th s. T h e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d , h o w e v e r, th a t a sen tenc e a t th e low er e n d o f th e ra n g e w as m o re rea so n ab le, an d there fo re re d u c e d M s . R o llo w ’s s e n te n c e to 1 6 0 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t.-4-

N ow appea r i ng befor e thi s cour ta s econd t i m e, M s . R ol l ow cont ends the dis t ri ctcou rtm i sconst rued t he scop e of the rem and order. F ocu si ng on the las t phr as e of the pane l ’ s m andat e, M s . R ol l ow ar gues thatthe l anguage di r ect i ng “thats he be r e- s ent ence d i n acc or d w i th B ooker - Fanf an , ” i d. , r equi r ed the di s t r i ct c o u r tt o r e c o n s i d e rt h e p r o p r i e t yo f h e re n t i r e s e n t e n c e r a th e rth a n th e two s ent ence enhanc ement s excl us i vel y . She t hen goes a s t ep furtherand cha l l enges bot h herbas e offens e l evel as w el l as the s ent ence enhanc ement s . She cont ends h e r b a se o ffe n se lev e l is u n c o n stitu tio n a l b e c a u se it w a s b a se d o n a d ru g q u a n tity t hatw as notfound byt he j ury ; s he cha l l enges the s ent ence enhanc ement s by ar gui ng t he di s t r i ctcour tw as w i thoutauthor i tyt o r etr oact i vel yappl ythe s ent enci ng gui del i nes t o hercas e i n an advi s oryfas hi on. T her efor e, i nvoki ng B ooker ’ s s ubs t ant i ve rul e w hi l e att empt i ng t o avoi d i t s r emedi al hol di ng, M s . R o llo w c o n c lu d e s th a t h e r p ro p e r s e n te n c in g ra n g e is 1 0 to 1 6 m o n th s . I I . D i s cus s i on A . Sc ope of

R e m and W e first a d d re ss M s. R o llo w ’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e d istric t co u rt im p ro p e rly lim ited th e sc o p e o f

th e re m a n d o rd e r. H e r a rg u m e n t is sim p lyth a t th e m a n d a te iss u e d b yth is c o u rt v a c a ted h e r e n tire s e n ten c e a n d re q u ire d th e d istric t co u rt to compl et el yr eeva l uat e hers ent ence i n l i ghtof B ooker . B eca us e M s . R ol l ow p r e s e r v e d i n t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tt h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f e rr o rs h e a r g u e s o n a p p e a l , we appl yharm l es s err oranal y s i s t o ens ur e thatanyerr ordi d notaffecther-5-

s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . Ma rs h a ll , 4 3 2 F . 3 d 1 1 5 7 , 1 1 6 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); F e d . R . C ri m . P . 5 2 (a ). O ur anal y si s here i s gov erned b ythe m and at e rul e, w hich i s a “di s cr et i on- gui di ng rul e” that“gene r al l yr equi r es tr i al cour tconform i tyw i th the ar t i cul at ed appe l l at e r emand. ” United S tates v. Moo re , 83 F. 3d 1231, 1234 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) . “A l t hough a di s tr i ctcour ti s bound t o fol l ow the mandat e, and t he mandat e contr ol s al l m at t er s w i thi n i t s s cope, a di s tr i ctcour ton r emand i s fr ee t o pas s upon anyi s s ue w hi ch w as notexpr es s l yori m pl i edl ydi s pos ed of on appea l . ” P r oct or& G am bl e C o. v. Haugen , 317 F. 3d 1121, 1126 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( i nt ernal quot at i on and al t er at i on om i t t ed) . T hus , “w her e the appe l l at e courthas nots peci fi cal l yl i m i t ed the s cope of the r emand, the di s tr i ctcour tgener al l yhas di s cr et i on t o expand the r es ent enci ng bey ond the s ent enci ng err orcaus i ng the r ever s al . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Lang , 405 F. 3d 1060, 1064 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T o appl yt he mandat e rul e t o the pr es entcas e, w e “e xami ne the m andat e and then l ook atw hatt he di s tr i ctcourtdi d. ” P r octor& G am bl e C o. , 3 1 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 6 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). H e re , o u r m a n d a te s ta te d , “ A c c o rd in g ly, R o llo w ’s c o n v ic tio n is a ffir m e d . H o w ev er, he r sen tenc e is v ac ated an d the m att er is rem an d ed to the d istri ct co u rt w i t h di r ect i on t hats he be r e- s ent ence d i n acc or d w i th B ooker - Fanf an . ” R ol l ow , 146 F. A pp’ x at295. B eca us e thi s m andat e l acks the s or tof s peci fi ci tyr equi r ed to lim it th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s re s e n te n c in g a u th o ri ty, s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. Hi cks ,-6-

1 4 6 F .3 d 1 1 9 8 , 1 2 0 0 -0 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ), th e d istric t co u rt h a d d isc re tio n to acc om m odat e M s . R ol l ow ’ s r eques tand expa nd t he s cope of r es ent enci ng. B u t th e d istric t co u rt a p p a re n tlyb e liev e d it w a s c o n stra in e d to re e v a lu a te onl yt he tw o s ent ence enhanc ement s . I ndeed, r ecogni zi ng t hatw e had focus ed on t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ngs t hatM s . R ol l ow obs truct ed j us t i ce a nd pl ay ed a maj or r ol e i n t he offens e, t he di s t r i ctcour ti nt erpr et ed ourm andat e as l i m i t i ng the r emand t o t he “r ai s i ng of the offens e l evel fr om 30 t o 34 on the bas i s thatthe gui del i nes w er e mandat or y . ” R e- Sent . T r . 12. T he courtthus decl i ned t o expand th e sc o p e o f

re se n ten c in g b e y o n d th e tw o se n ten c e e n h a n c e m e n ts, sta tin g : I do bel i eve thatt hi s C our ti s obl i ged t o conductthi s hear i ng and the r es ent enci ng onl yon t hos e i s s ues , and i f – i f the s cope s houl d be enl ar ged, as [defens e couns el ] s ugges t [s ] , i ts eems t o m e thatthe C o u rt o f A p p e a ls w o u ld h a v e to b e th e b o d yto in stru c t th is C o u rt to d o s o , a n d th a t’ s m ya n a lysis o f th e – o f th e re m a n d o rd e r.

. . . . [I] f t he C ou rtof A pp eal s should cl ari fythat and ag ree w i th [d efen se couns el ] , i tw i l l come back and – a nd w e’ l l pr ocee d agai n w i th a b ro a d e n e d sc o p e , b u t itis n o t – it i s n o t m yro le, in m yo p in io n , to at t empt t o br oaden the i s s ues r emanded forthi s C our tt o addr es s , and i ti s onl yfort he C our tof A ppeal s t o do s o. Id. at12- 13. A s th e se p a ss a g e s d e m o n stra te, th e d istric t co u rt in c o rre c tlyb e liev e d it cou l d n ot r econ si der M s. R oll ow ’s enti re s entence. T his err or w as harm l ess, h o w e v e r, b e c a u se a lth o u g h M s. R o llo w in iti a llyo bjec ted to th e d ru g q u a n tity us ed t o es t abl i s h herbas e offens e l evel , s he made no offe rof pr oof t o r efut e that-7-

quant i t y . I ndeed, s he has fai l ed t o pr offe ranyevi dence atal l di s put i ng the quant i t yof ps eudoephe dr i ne al l eged i n the PSR . H eri nabi l i tyt o do s o i s a s tr ong in d ic a tio n th a t th e b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l w a s p re m is e d o n a c tu a l c o n d u c t. See Uni t ed Stat es v. R i ccardi , 4 0 5 F . 3 d 8 5 2 , 8 7 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). M o reo v er, th e juryh ea rd ampl e evi dence thatM s . R ol l ow w as i nvol ved i n the cons pi r acyand w as r es pons i bl e for3, 438 ki l ogr ams of ps eudoephe dr i ne. T he j uryther eaf t er convi ct ed herforcomm i t t i ng t he offens e. U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , the di s tr i ct cour t ’ s fai l ur e t o r eeva l uat e M s . R ol l ow ’ s bas e offens e l evel di d notaffecther s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . A ddi t i onal l y , w e not e thatbas ed on the r ecor d befor e us , ther e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a tM s . Ro l l o w r a i s e d th i s i s s u e o n d i r e c ta p p e a l . T h e fa c tth a twe c o m p lete lyo m itt e d M s. R o llo w ’s b a se o ffe n se lev e l f ro m o u r p re v io u s a n a ly sis s t r ongl ys ugges t s t hatdes pi t e obj ect i ng t o the drug quant i tycal cul at i on at s ent enci ng, s he conc entr at ed herappel l at e effor t s on chal l engi ng hers ent ence enhanc ement s . I f thi s i s i ndeed the ca s e, i ti s notatal l s urpr i s i ng thatthe di s tr i ct cour tdecl i ned t o r eeva l uat e M s . R ol l ow ’ s bas e offens e l evel w her e s he di d not ch all en g e ito n ap p ea l. In a n yev en t, w e a re sa ti sfied that M s. R o ll o w ’s su b stan ti al ri g h ts w ere n o t violated an d there fo re c o n clud e tha t th e d istri ct co u rt ’s err or i n li m i t i ng t he scop e of the rem and w as harm l ess.D efen se coun sel ci t es “Jones v. Uni t e [sic] Stat es , 527 U . S. 373, 388, 119 1 S. C t . 1215 ( 1999) . ” See A pl t . B r . at3, 15. T hi s r efe r ence m er ges t he ci t at i ons of tw o d iffe re n t c a s e s , Jones v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 2 6 U . S . 2 2 7 , 1 1 9 S . C t. 1 2 1 5 (19 9 9 ), and Jones v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 2 7 U .S . 3 7 3 , 1 1 9 S .C t. 20 9 0 (1 9 9 9 ). T h e e rro r is c o m p lica ted b yth e fa c t th a t th ro u g h o u t h is b rie f, co u n se l re fe rs to th e a u th o rity on l yas “ Jon es. ” See, e. g. , A p lt . B r. at 16 . B ec au se th e b asis o f M s. R o ll o w ’s appea l conce r ns a s ent enci ng i s s ue addr es s ed i n Jones v. Uni t ed Stat es , 52 6 U. S. 2 2 7 , 1 1 9 S .C t. 12 1 5 (1 9 9 9 ), w e c a n o n lya ss u m e c o u n se l in ten d e d to in v o k e th is a u th o rity , an d n o t Jones v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 2 7 U .S . 3 7 3 , 1 1 9 S .C t. 2 0 9 0 (1 9 9 9 ). -8- B . D i s cre t i onary A ppl i cat i on of t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M s . R ol l ow nextat t empt s t o i nvoke B ooker ’s s u b sta n tiv e ru le, b u t av o id its re m e d ial h o ld in g . B e g in n in g w ith th e p re m ise th a t B ookeri s i nap pli cable because s he w as s ent ence d pr e- B ooker , M s . R ol l ow cont ends t he di s tr i ctcourtw as w i t hout author i t yt o r etr oact i vel yappl yt he s ent enci ng gui del i nes i n an advi s or yfas hi on s o as t o enhanc e hers ent ence . Y etci t i ng Jones v. Uni t ed Stat es , 526 U . S. 227, 243 n. 6 ( 1999) , M s . R ol l ow cl i ngs t o B ooker ’ s s ubs t ant i ve Si xth A m endment pr ot ect i on t hatanyfac t( ot hert han a pr i orconvi ct i on) t hati ncr eas es t he m axi m um penal t yfora cr i m e mustbe cha r ged i n an i ndi ctm ent , s ubm i t t ed t o a ju ry , an d p ro v e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. T h u s, re a so n in g th a t sh e is 1 prot ect ed from retroact i ve, dis cret i on aryapp l i cat i on of the sent encing g uidel i nes, butent i t l ed t o a j ur yver di cton anyfac tt hati ncr eas es hers ent ence , M s . R ol l ow c o n c lu d e s th a t h e r c o rr e c t s e n te n c in g ra n g e is 1 0 to 1 6 m o n th s . I n i t i a l l y , we n o t e t h a tM s . Ro l l o w’ s p o s i t i o n i s u n d e r c u tb yh e ro wn c o n c e ss io n th a t B ookera p p lie s to a ll c a s e s o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. See A pl t . B r . at13 (“ B ooker/

Fanf an appl i es t o al l cas es on di r ectappea l . ”) . N onethel es s , our-9-

pr ece denthas for ecl os ed the pos s i bi l i tyof M s . R ol l ow avoi di ng B ooker ’s r emedi al hol di ng. I n Uni t ed Stat es v. R i nes , 4 1 9 F . 3 d 1 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 6 (10 th C ir . 2005) , w e r ej ect ed the s i m i l arcont ent i on thatappl y i ng B ooker ’ s r emedi al hol di ng t o a pr e- B ookeroffense w ou l d v i olat e t he F i ft h A m end m ent’ s D ue P rocess C laus e. W e e x p lai n ed that this argu m en t i s “c o n tr aryto the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s expl i ci ti ns t ruct i ons i n B ooker , ” i d. , w h ich w ere that “w e m u st ap p lytod ay ’s hol di ngs – bot h t he Si xt h A m endmenthol di ng and ourr emedi al i nt erpr et at i on of t he Sent enci ng A ct– t o al l cas es on di r ectr evi ew , ” B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . a t 2 6 8 . M s . R ol l ow ’ s cas e w as on di r ectr evi ew atthe t i m e B ookerw as deci ded. T he di s t r i ctcour tt her efor e w as corr ectt o r etr oact i vel ycons i derand appl ythe g u id e lin e s in a n a d v iso ryfa sh io n . M s. R o llo w ’s in sis ten c e th a t all s ent ence - enhanc i ng fac t s m us tbe pr oven bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtdoes notal t er th e a n a ly sis b e c a u se p o st- B ooker , “di s tr i ctcour t s ar e s t i l l r equi r ed t o cons i der G ui del i ne r anges , w hi ch ar e det erm i ned thr ough appl i cat i on of the pr eponder ance s t andar d, j us tas t heyw er e befor e, ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Magal lanez , 408 F. 3d 672, 685 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . M s . R ol l ow ’ s s ent ence her e w as bas ed on a quant i t yof drugs forw hi ch s he w as found r es pons i bl e bya j ur yw i thoutany o ffer o f p roo f to the c o n tr ary ; her se n tenc e w as e n h an ce d thro u g h d iscreti o n ary ju d icia l fa c t-fin d in g b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . M s. R o llo w re c e iv e d a ll t he p rot ect i on s the co nst i tuti on affo rds.-10- I I I . C oncl usi on T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

D avi d M . E bel C i r cui tJ udge