United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1475

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal From the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Marquette Scott Walterman, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 15, 2005

Filed: May 27, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

Marquette Scott Walterman appeals the district court’s imposition of a 168-

month sentence for his drug conviction. We affirm.

On June 13, 2002, Walterman pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to

manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§

841(b)(1)(B) and 846. The district court sentenced Walterman to 262 months of

imprisonment after finding that Walterman was a career offender as defined by

United States Sentencing Guideline section 4B1.1. Walterman appealed, arguing that

1) the district court erred in its application of the career offender enhancement, and
1

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

-2-

2) the district court was unaware that it could depart downward from Walterman’s

guideline sentence. We agreed with Walterman on his first claim, and “remand[ed]

for resentencing without application of the career offender enhancement.” United

States v. Walterman, 343 F.3d 938, 943 (8th Cir. 2003). 

On remand, the parties agreed that there were no outstanding factual issues, and

Walterman presented no relevant objections to the revised presentence report.

Consistent with our mandate, the district court did not apply the career offender

enhancement. Walterman sought and received a sentence of 168 months of

imprisonment, the lowest sentence permitted under his guideline range. Nonetheless,

Walterman again appealed his sentence. First, his attorney filed an Anders1

 brief

suggesting that the district court’s drug quantity determination was plainly erroneous

because it rested on unreliable testimony. Counsel then filed a second brief, arguing

that Walterman’s sentence violated Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004),

because the district court enhanced his sentence based on conduct not admitted or

proven to a jury. Walterman did not advance such a claim before the district court

during his first sentencing proceeding, in his first appeal, or in his second sentencing

proceeding.

We decline to address Walterman’s new arguments in this subsequent appeal.

Our prior remand was limited to permit resentencing without application of the

erroneously-applied career offender enhancement. Where a remand is limited to the

resolution of specific issues, those issues outside the scope of the remand are

generally not available for consideration. United States v. Logan, 333 F.3d 876, 878

(8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Behler, 187 F.3d 772, 777 (8th Cir. 1999).

Moreover, Walterman never brought this court’s attention to any issue related to the

enhancements, which he now contends warrant reversal of a sentence imposed

without objection. “A defendant does not receive a second chance to support an
-3-

argument he failed to support in a first appeal simply because he is resentenced.”

United States v. Stuckey, 255 F.3d 528, 531 (8th Cir. 2001); see also United States

v. Kress, 58 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 1995) (“Where a party could have raised an issue

in a prior appeal but did not, a court later hearing the same case need not consider the

matter.”). Having found no remaining issues of merit, we affirm the district court’s

168-month sentence.

______________________________