Thi s su cc es si ve a ppea lha s be ens ubmi tt ed to the o r i g i na lpa ne lunde rOpe r at i ng * Pro cedure 6( b)
. Afte r exam i ni ng the br i ef s a nd the re cor d, w e hav e co ncl ud ed that or al ar gu m en t is u n n ec es sa ry . See Fed
. R. A p p . P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f ). 

### NON PRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION Tobecitedonly in a c c ordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

# U n ited S tates C o u rt o f A p p ea ls Fo r th e Se ve n th C irc u it Ch i cago , I l l i noi s 6 0604 Subm i tte d M ar ch 25, 20 10 * Deci ded M ay 7, 20 10 Bef or e FR A N K H . E A ST E R B R O O K , Chie f Judg e K E N N E T H F. R IP P L E , Cir cu i tJudg e T E R E N C E T . E V A N S, Cir cu i tJudg e
N os. 09
- 2404 & 09
- 2405 U N I TE D STA TE S OF A M ER I CA , A pp eal s fro m the U ni ted S tat es D istri ct C ou rt forthe N orthe rn P la intif f-A pp ellee, Di st r i cto fI l l i no i s, Ea st ern Di vi si o n.
v. N o. 1: 04- cr- 0052 2 J AI M E ANDR ADE a nd MA RI BEL M I R A M O N T E S, D avi d H . Coar, Judg e . D ef endants-A ppell ants . O R D E R I n thi s su cc es si ve a ppea l, J ai m e Andra de an d M ar ibe lM i r amont es con tend tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed byde ny i ngthe i rmot i o n to di smi ss the i ndi ct m en t. We c o nc l ude tha t th eN os. 09
- 2404 & 09
- 2405 Page 2

m oti on w as outsi de the sco pe ofo ur r em and or der, and that the defendants waiv ed thei r ri ghts to ch alle n ge th e in d ict m en t. W e t h er efo re affirm th e d ist ric t c ou rt 's ord er d en yin g t h eir m o ti o n. M r. A nd ra de and M s. M i ra m onte s were convi cted o fdrug vi ol ati ons, pursuant to 21 U .S.C . §§ 8 41 (a)( 1) a n d 84 6, an d th ey ap p ea led th eir se n te n c es on va riou s g ro u n d s. See U nited St at e s v. Andrade, 29 5 F ed. A pp x. 64 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. W e deni ed M s. M i ra m onte s’ s co ntenti on th at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed by find in g t h at h er c r i m e i n v o l ve d cr ac k c oc ain e. Id. at67
- 68. H oweve r, w e v acat ed M r. A nd ra de’s and M s. M i ra m onte s’ s s entence s a nd r em anded f or resen ten cing in li gh t of K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 552 U .S. 85 (20 07 ). Se eAndrade, 2 9 5 F e d. A pp x. at68
- 69. Our re m and or der c ontained speci fi c and ci rcum scr ibed i nstr ucti ons. W i th r e s pe c tt o Ms. Mi r a mon t e s , we e xp l a i ne d: Because M s. M i ra m onte s o ri gi nal l y was se nte nc e d a ft e rthea men ded guidel i nes f orco cai ne becam e effecti ve, the dist ri ct cour t shoul d em plo y those gui del i nes inca lcu lat in g M s. M ira m on te s’ s en te n c e o n rem an d
. A fte r th e s en te n c e is cal cul ate d usi ng the am ended guidel i nes, the dis tr i ct courtm ay then co nsi der w he th er any furth er redu ction, in li gh t of Kim b r ough , i s wa r r a nt e d. Id. a t 68
. Wi thr es pec t to M r . Andr ade , we no te d tha t he ha d b ee n s en te nc ed pr i o rt o the a do pt i o n o fthe g ui de l i ne a men dme nt s f o rc r a c kc o c a i ne . Ac c o r di ng l y, we e xp l a i ne d: S i m i l arto the pro ce dur e s etf o r thi n [ U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 520 F.3d 746 ( 7th Cir. 20 08 ) ] , th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tmu s td e c i d e wh e th e r, i n r e s p o n s e t o a mo t i o n b y the d efendant or on the cour t’ s own m oti on, re l i ef und er the new gui del i nes i s appr o pr i at e. Re g ar dl es s o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s ac ti o n wi thr es pec t to the mot i o n-

- w hetheri t deter m i nes that no r el i efunder the Guidel i nes s houl d be g ra nted or i t dec i des t o i m po se a ne w sen ten ce u nde rthe a m en ded g ui del i ne - - th e d efend an t’s sent en ce stillm us t be evalu ated i n li gh t of Kim b r ough
. Id. a t 6 9. W e va ca te d the j udg m en ts o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t an d r emande d f o rr es en te nc i ng ac c or d in g t o th e p ro c ed u re s s etfort h in o u r or d er . Id. On rem and, M r. A nd ra de and M s. Mi r a mon t e s fi l e d a m oti on t o dism i ss the ind i ctm ent, on the gr ound that the m andator y m i ni m um se ntenci ng re gi m e of 21 U . S. C. § 8 41(b) vi ol ate d thei r const i tuti onalr i ghts. They cont ended pri m ar i l y that the 100: 1 rat i o ofcr ack- coca i ne to po wderc o ca i ne mandat o r y min i m um pe na l ti es ( 1) i s arbi tr ary a nd wi th o utr at i o na lb a s i s, thus vi o l at i ve o fthe Due Pr o ce ss Cl au se o f th e F i fth Am en dm en t to the Uni te d S ta te s Con st i tu ti o n, an d ( 2) pr o duce s a di spa r at e im p act on Afr i ca n- Am er i ca n a nd Hi spa ni c defen dan ts , thus vi ol ati ve ofthe Eq ual Pro tect i on Cl ause ofthe Four tee nth A m endm ent. The Gove rnm entN os. 09
- 2404 & 09
- 2405 Page 3

opposed the m oti on on the gr ound that i ts subj ect m att erwas bey ond the s cope o fo ur l i m i ted re m and. The Gover nm ent al so conte nd ed that, pu rs uant to Feder al Rule of C rim i nal Pro cedure 12, the defe nd ants had w ai ved thei r ri ghts to bring such a m oti on by f ai l i ng to ra i se i t be f o r e tr i al
. F i na l l y, an d i n an y ev en t, the Go ve r nm en t co nt en ded th atthe mot i o n h ad no m er i t an d cit ed ou r p re vio u s c on sid er at ion an d rejec tio n of th e c on st itu tio n al a rg u m en ts in U nite d States v. Law re nce, 9 5 1 F . 2 d 7 5 1 , 7 5 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 1 ) , a nd U nited Sta tes v. C ha nd ler, 99 6 F
. 2d 917, 91 8 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93)
. Duri ng the rese ntenci ng heari ng, the dist ri ct courtd eni ed the m oti on w i thout com m ent, see T r. at 2, A p r. 28 , 200 9, an d iss u ed a m in u te en tr y c on firm in g t h e d en ial, see R. 172. The di str i ct cour t re sente nced the defe nd ants acco rdi ng to o ur r em and i nstr ucti ons. M r. A nd ra de and M s. M i ra m onte s no w appealthe denia lof t h eir m ot i on t o dism i ss. Th ey r ep ea t th e a rgum ents they m ade to the dist ri ct c ourtabo ut the const i tuti onal i ty of21 U . S. C. § 8 41(b)
. They al so conte nd thatsince o ur rem and or der v acat ed thei r sente nces, they w er e fre e to ra i se new and o l d s entencing ar gum ents du ring the r em and procee dings
. They do no t r es po nd t o the Go ve r nm en t’ s co nt en ti o n tha t th eywai ved th ei rr i g ht s to c o nt es t th e co ns ti tu tionality of§ 8 41 ( b) b y f ai l i ngt o r ai se tha t i ss ue pr i o rt o t r i al
. We c o nc l ude tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t pr o per l y de ni ed th e m o ti o n. Pu r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S
. C
. § 2 1 0 6 , we ma y l i mi tth e s c o p e o fo u rr e ma n d o r d e r s . I fwe iden tify “a d iscrete, p articu lar error tha t c a n b e corrected on rem an d w ithou t the need f or a re deter m in atio n ofo theri ssues , the dist ri ct c ourti s l i m i ted to co rr ecting tha t e rr or . ” U nited Sta tes v. P a rker, 10 1 F. 3d 527, 528 (7th Cir
. 1996)
. This i s co m m onl y r efer re d to as the m andate ru le. Se e U ni t e d St at e s v. Pol l and, 56 F. 3d 776, 777 (7th Cir
. 1995) (“The m andate r ule r equi re s a low er co u rtto ad h er e t o th e com m an d s o f a h igh er co u rton rem an d .”). A lth ou gh th er e is no f or m ula f ordeter m i ni ng a re m and or der’ s s c o pe, thel anguage o fthe re m and or der c ontr ol s. SeeU nite d Statev. W

hite, 40 6 F .3d 82 7, 83 1 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ). H er e, th e d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly i nter prete d our re m and or der a s di re cti ng co nsi derat i on o nl y o fthe Kim b r ough i ss ue a nd re l ate d sentencing m att er s. W e be l i eve the dist ri ct c ourtdeni ed the m otion to di sm i ss as ou tsid e the scop e of ou r l im ited rem an d order. T he de nial w as p rop er. The m oti on t o dism i ss w as al so i m proper l y r ai sed o n re m and because the chal l enge to th e ind ict m en t w as n otrais ed d u rin g t h e in itia l d ist ric t c ou rtp ro c ee d in gs . Cf. U ni t e d St at e s v. Tri p le tt, No. 9 2- 17 01 , 1 99 2 W L 3 86 85 1, a t * 6 ( 7th Ci r . De c. 2 9, 1 99 2) ( no tingtha t a defen dan t w ai ved hi s r i ght t o chal l enge the c onst i tuti onal i ty of§ 841(b) by not ra i si ng i t bef or e he fi l ed hi s a p p e a l, a l th o u g h a d d r e s s i n g th e n e w a r g u me n t s b e c a u s e th e Go v e r n me n t wa i ve d t he d efe n d an t’s w aiv er ). Fu rt h er m or e, ev en if th e t ra d itio n al w aiv er ba r h ad n otap p lied in t h is case , the f ai l ure ofM r. A nd ra de and M s. M i ra m onte s t o ra i se thei r const i tuti onalchal l enges inth eir init ial appe al waive d thei r ri ght to ra i se thos e i ssues duri ng the r em and procee dings
. See P a rker, 1 01 F . 3d at5 28 ( “A pa r tyc anno t us e th e ac ci den t o fa r emand to ra i se i n a s ec o nd appe ala n i ss ue tha t he c o ul d j us t as wel l ha ve r ai se d i n the fi r sta ppea lb ec au se the r emandN os. 09
- 2404 & 09
- 2405 Page 4

did notaffect i t. ”)
. W hi l e w e have been car eful not to i ssue ove rl y r est ri cti ve re m and or ders, se e W hite, 4 0 6 F . 3 d a t8 3 1
- 3 2 , we ha v e co ns i s t e nt l y he l d tha tne w ar g ume nt s , o ut s i de the s c o pe of th e p lain lan gu ag e o f a lim ite d rem an d ord er , sh all b e t re a te d as w aiv ed , see U nited Sta tes v. Sc hro eder, 536 F.3d 74 6, 75 1-5 2 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). A ccor dingl y, we AF F I RM the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fthe m oti on t o dism i ss. AFFI RM ED