FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

No. 05-30149 Plaintiff-Appellee,

D.C. No.

v.  CR-03-00029-SEH

VERNON LEE BAD MARRIAGE, JR., OPINION Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

December 6, 2005—Seattle, Washington

Filed February 22, 2006

Before: Ronald M. Gould and Marsha S. Berzon,

Circuit Judges, and William W Schwarzer,*

Senior District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Schwarzer;

Dissent by Judge Berzon

*The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District

Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 

1899
COUNSEL

David F. Ness, Assistant Federal Defender, Federal Defenders

of Montana, Great Falls, Montana, for the defendantappellant. 

Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant U. S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s

Office, Great Falls, Montana, for the plaintiff-appellee. 

OPINION

SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge: 

Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr., (Bad Marriage) appeals his

sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a charge of

assault resulting in serious bodily injury in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6) and 1153. Finding no error, we affirm. 

1902 UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Bad Marriage was indicted in March 2003 on a charge of

aggravated sexual assault in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 2241(a)(1) and 1153. Following a plea agreement, he was

charged in a superseding information with assault resulting in

serious bodily injury. He pled guilty to that charge. 

The incident giving rise to the charge occurred on January

30, 2003. Bad Marriage was released from tribal jail to attend

an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. Instead, he went to the

home of Leeta Old Chief, his girlfriend. After having consensual sex, they drove to visit friends. There an argument

ensued between the couple and Bad Marriage began hitting

Old Chief. The couple then drove to the rodeo grounds where

Bad Marriage severely kicked and beat Old Chief. Bad Marriage and Old Chief then had anal sex. Old Chief initially told

FBI agents that she had been raped but later retracted this

claim. Once Old Chief told law enforcement officers that she

would no longer be willing to testify that Bad Marriage had

raped her, the government dismissed the indictment in

exchange for Bad Marriage’s guilty plea to the information

charging assault resulting in serious bodily injury. 

The district court sentenced Bad Marriage under the thenbinding Sentencing Guidelines. The court ruled, based on

U.S.S.G. § 4A.1.3 (policy statement), that the criminal history

level III under-represented both the seriousness of Bad Marriage’s past criminal conduct and the likelihood that he would

commit future crimes. It sentenced Bad Marriage to forty-one

months in prison, the high end of the sentencing range determined under the Guidelines with his offense score and

adjusted criminal history level. Bad Marriage appealed the

sentence, contending that his criminal history did not consist

of serious offenses warranting a departure under U.S.S.G.

§ 4A.1.3. This court reversed and remanded for resentencing,

holding that “an upward departure pursuant to § 4A.1.3 was

UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE 1903
not justified by the facts.” United States v. Bad Marriage, 392

F.3d 1103, 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) (Bad Marriage I). 

In imposing sentence on remand, the district court provided

a lengthy statement of reasons, starting with an analysis of the

Ninth Circuit decision. It read that decision as resting on the

fundamental premise that the Sentencing Guidelines were

binding on the court. United States v. Booker, however,

changed that, establishing that application of the Guidelines

could not be mandatory. 125 S. Ct. 738, 756-57 (2005). Under

Booker, the court is required to take into account the Guidelines as well as the sentencing considerations contained in

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court then enumerated the factors it

considered in arriving at the sentence in addition to the advisory Guidelines calculation, including the defendant’s extensive criminal record, the absence of assurance that the

defendant will not offend again given the opportunity, the

defendant’s capacity to commit brutal and degrading acts of

violence, and the substantial blunt force injury inflicted by the

defendant’s kicking the victim with heavy hiking boots. In

sum, the court concluded, the defendant is an extremely dangerous person capable of inflicting severe harm on vulnerable

and defenseless persons, calling for a sentence that recognizes

the brutality of the assault and the need to protect the public

in the future. The court then sentenced Bad Marriage to fortyeight months in prison. This timely appeal followed. 

DISCUSSION

I. THE MANDATE AND LAW OF THE CASE

A. Law of the Case

[1] Bad Marriage’s principal contention is that the district

court failed to comply with this court’s mandate. That mandate was to resentence Bad Marriage “within the appropriate

range.” Bad Marriage I, 392 F.3d at 1115. Bad Marriage

reads the mandate as requiring imposition of a sentence based

1904 UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE
on offense level sixteen and criminal history category III

resulting in a range of twenty-seven to thirty-three months.

We disagree. 

The court’s opinion does not elucidate “the appropriate

range.” Its resentencing mandate was based on its determination that the upward adjustment of Bad Marriage’s criminal

history was not justified. Id. at 1111-13. Its decision rested on

its interpretation of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, “Departures Based on

Inadequacy of Criminal History Category (Policy Statement),” and that section’s application to the facts of the case.1

Although there is a degree of overlap between the factors

bearing on criminal history and those relevant under § 3553,

the court did not decide whether other factors relevant to the

Guidelines calculation could have justified an upward departure. See, e.g., U.S.S.G. § 5K2.8 Extreme Conduct (Policy

Statement) (2003) (court may increase the sentence above the

Guidelines range for “conduct unusually . . . brutal or degrading to the victim”). 

[2] On remand, the district court looked to the Guidelines

as advisory but made no reference to Bad Marriage’s criminal

history category. When defense counsel, in the course of his

argument, asked the court to apply category III in its Guidelines calculation, the court did not respond, neither rejecting

1

In beginning its analysis, the court referred to Bad Marriage’s contention “that his criminal history, while extensive, does not consist of serious

offenses warranting departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3.” Bad Marriage I,

392 F.3d at 1107. The court’s opinion then proceeded to discuss “Ninth

Circuit Law on § 4A1.3 Departures.” Id. at 1108. It concluded by “hold[-

ing] that the seriousness of a defendant’s prior convictions must be a significant factor in a decision to depart under either prong of § 4A1.3.” Id.

at 1110. It next discussed the “Recidivism Prong” and concluded “that an

upward departure based on the [recidivism] prong of § 4A1.3 was not justified.” Id. at 1113. Finally, the court discussed “Substance Abuse” and

concluded that “the length and character of Bad Marriage’s criminal

record is clearly the result of a serious drinking problem. To sentence Bad

Marriage to a longer term on the basis of that record would serve no useful

purpose.” Id. at 1114. 

UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE 1905
nor granting this request. The district court’s stated reasons

for imposing its sentence were, in substance, to punish the

defendant for committing a brutal assault on a defenseless

person and to protect the public from similar conduct in the

future. Although the court, free of the constraint of the Guidelines, imposed a more severe sentence on remand, we find

nothing in the record to suggest that the sentence contravened

the mandate. 

B. The Effect of Booker 

[3] Even if we were to read Bad Marriage I to hold that on

the facts no upward departure from the Guidelines range is

justified, the law of the case doctrine does not bar the sentence. “Under the ‘law of the case’ doctrine, a court is ordinarily precluded from reexamining an issue previously

decided by the same court, or a higher court, in the same

case.” Minidoka Irrigation Dist. v. Dep’t of Interior, 406 F.3d

567, 573 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Old Person v. Brown, 312

F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002)). The doctrine is subject to

three exceptions, only one of which is relevant here, to wit,

where intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration

appropriate. Id. 

[4] The opinion in Bad Marriage I was issued on December

30, 2004. On January 12, 2005, the Supreme Court decided

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738. The Booker decision fundamentally

changed the sentencing regime under which Bad Marriage I

was decided, making the Guidelines advisory rather than

mandatory. 125 S. Ct. at 756-57 (district courts must consult

the Guidelines but are not bound by them).2 If Bad Marriage

I is read to establish the law of the case under a mandatory

Sentencing Guidelines regime, Booker, which leaves Guide2Contrary to Bad Marriage’s assertion, the district court was free to consider the Booker issue sua sponte. United States v. Cortez-Arias, 425 F.3d

547, 548 (9th Cir. 2005) 

1906 UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE
lines as advisory only, is intervening controlling authority displacing prior law of case.3

II. OTHER CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

Bad Marriage’s other contentions may be readily disposed

of. 

He contends first that the retroactive application of Booker

to increase his sentence for a pre-Booker offense violates the

Ex Post Facto clause of the Constitution. We squarely rejected

this claim in United States v. Dupas, 419 F.3d 916 (9th Cir.

2005), for three reasons: the Booker opinion specifically

makes the advisory Guidelines regime applicable to pending

cases; retroactive sentence enhancements, as opposed to retroactive increases in the scope of criminal liability, do not

offend the ex post facto prohibition; and although application

of Booker could result in an increased sentence, the statutory

maximum penalty gave sufficient notice to satisfy due process. Id. at 920-21. 

[5] Next, Bad Marriage contends that the sentence was

unreasonable. He relies on the court’s statement in Bad Marriage I that it found “nothing in the record to suggest that the

standard range set by the Sentencing Guidelines would be an

inadequate deterrent.” Id. at 1113. That statement is not helpful to Bad Marriage. It referred to the calculation of the appropriate criminal history category. As previously discussed, Bad

Marriage I decided that an upward adjustment of the criminal

history category was not justified; it did not decide the appropriate sentencing range. The district court followed the proper

3Several decisions have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., United

States v. Puche, No. 05-10033, 2005 WL 3113463, at *4 (11th Cir. Nov.

22, 2005) (unpublished); United States v. Butler, 139 F. App’x 510, 512

(4th Cir. 2005) (unpublished). See also United States v. Lang, 405 F.3d

1060, 1064 (10th Cir. 2005) (published) (stating that the Blakely decision

might constitute an exceptional circumstance for purposes of the mandate

rule). 

UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE 1907
procedure in arriving at its sentence, taking into account the

Guidelines and considering the § 3553 factors, in particular

“the seriousness of the offense,” § 3553(a)(2)(A) (noting the

brutality of the assault on a defenseless person), and the need

“to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.”

§ 3553(a)(2)(C). While we recognize that the sentence is

above the advisory Guidelines range, that alone, without a

factual showing, is insufficient to make it unreasonable. 

[6] Finally, Bad Marriage contends that the imposition of

the longer sentence following his successful appeal raises a

presumption of vindictiveness. He argues that the presumption applies here because the district court in increasing the

sentence did not rely on any new or additional evidence. But

the presumption applies only when “there is a ‘reasonable

likelihood’ that the increase in sentence is the product of

actual vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing authority.”

Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 799 (1989) (internal citation

omitted). It is overcome when “the reasons for [imposition of

a more severe sentence] affirmatively appear.” Id. at 798

(quoting North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 726

(1969)). Those reasons affirmatively appear here. When the

district court imposed the original sentence, it was constrained

by the mandatory Guidelines. At resentencing, as the court

explained, that constraint had been removed freeing it to use

its discretion to impose a sentence it deemed appropriate. Its

reasons for the particular sentence are fully explained on the

record. We conclude that the change in circumstances

together with the court’s explanation for its sentence suffice

to remove any taint of vindictiveness.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the judgment and sentence are

AFFIRMED. 

1908 UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE
BERZON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: 

In my view, the district court did not accord the prior

panel’s opinion in United States v. Bad Marriage, 392 F.3d

1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (Bad Marriage I), the respect it is due.

Instead, the district court ignored Bad Marriage I’s legal rulings and analysis of the record, which it was not entitled to

do. The majority approves of the district court’s maneuver,

perhaps sharing the district court’s discomfort with the analysis and holding of Bad Marriage I. Whether or not that discomfort is understandable, we cannot run an orderly justice

system if such end-runs around appellate decisions in the

same case are permitted. I therefore respectfully dissent. 

In Bad Marriage I, we held that an upward departure pursuant to section 4A1.3 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines was not warranted by the facts, and struck down Vernon

Lee Bad Marriage’s forty-one month sentence. See id. at

1115. We reasoned, in part, that Bad Marriage’s criminal history did not warrant such a long sentence and that a sentence

of that length would not serve the goals of rehabilitating Bad

Marriage and protecting the public. See id. at 1114-15. On

remand, the district court correctly observed that after United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the Guidelines were

advisory rather than mandatory. It then imposed a longer sentence than it had previously, justifying the length of the sentence with reference to, inter alia, Bad Marriage’s extensive

criminal history and the need to protect the public. In so

doing, the district court completely disregarded our determinations in Bad Marriage I regarding the weight that should be

attached to Bad Marriage’s criminal history and the potential

efficacy of a long sentence, given Bad Marriage’s alcoholism.

I would hold that the district court abused its discretion

because it disregarded those determinations. 

I.

Under the law of the case doctrine, a decision by this court

must generally be followed in all subsequent proceedings in

UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE 1909
the same case. See Lindy Pen Co., Inc. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982

F.2d 1400, 1404 (9th Cir. 1993). For the doctrine to apply to

a particular issue, that issue must have been “decided explicitly or by necessary implication in [the] previous disposition.”

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 691 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir.

1982). This general rule — that decisions of this court must

be followed in subsequent proceedings — is subject to several

exceptions. As pertinent here, the law of the case need not be

followed when “intervening controlling authority makes

reconsideration appropriate.” Old Person v. Brown, 312 F.3d

1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002); see also id. (listing two other

exceptions: (1) “the decision is clearly erroneous and its

enforcement would work a manifest injustice,” and (2) “substantially different evidence was adduced at a subsequent

trial” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v.

Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443, 452-53 (9th Cir. 2000)

(listing four other exceptions: (1) “the first decision was

clearly erroneous,” (2) “the evidence on remand was substantially different,” (3) “other changed circumstances exist,” or

(4) “a manifest injustice would otherwise result”). We review

a district court’s failure to apply the doctrine of the law of the

case for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Alexander,

106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Related to the law of the case doctrine is the “rule of mandate,” which states that a lower court may decide any issue

not foreclosed by this court’s mandate. See Herrington v.

County of Sonoma, 12 F.3d 901, 904 (9th Cir. 1993). This

court may, however, “limit[ ] the scope of the issues for

which we remand.” United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880,

889 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc). When we clearly indicate our

intention to do so, the district court ordinarily lacks authority

to consider any issues not within the scope of the remand. See

United States v. Pimentel, 34 F.3d 799, 800 (9th Cir. 1994)

(per curiam). 

We have stated that “[t]he rule of mandate is similar to, but

broader than, the law of the case doctrine” and that “[a] dis1910 UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE
trict court, upon receiving the mandate of an appellate court

cannot vary it or examine it for any other purpose than execution.” United States v. Cote, 51 F.3d 178, 181 (9th Cir. 1995)

(internal quotation marks omitted). We have not had occasion

to address the extent to which the exceptions in the law of the

case doctrine also apply to the mandate rule. Nor does the

majority opinion examine whether the analysis is different

under the two doctrines. See majority op. at 1906-1907. 

I believe that the analysis probably is different under the

two doctrines, as each serves a different function. Both doctrines serve an interest in consistency, finality and efficiency.

See Bean v. Calderon, 163 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998);

Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp., 902 F.2d 703, 715

(9th Cir. 1990). The mandate rule, however, also serves an

interest in preserving the hierarchical structure of the court

system. See Mirchandani v. United States, 836 F.2d 1223,

1225 (9th Cir. 1988). For that reason, I would think that

exceptions to the law of the case doctrine such as manifest

injustice, see Old Person, 312 F.3d at 1039; Lummi Indian

Tribe, 235 F.3d at 453, do not apply to the mandate rule, and

that the change in law doctrine applies only to the limited

extent that the mandate need not be followed when it requires

a district court to do something that is illegal in light of intervening controlling authority. In such a case, the interest in

preserving our hierarchical structure must give way to the

interest in assuring that courts do not act unlawfully. 

II.

Bad Marriage I “remand[ed] to the District Court for resentencing within the appropriate range.” Bad Marriage I, 392

F.3d at 1115. Had the district court resentenced Bad Marriage

prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker, the district

court would have been required to sentence Bad Marriage to

a term “within the appropriate range” — i.e., between twentyseven and thirty-three months.1

Id.; see also id. at 1113 (not1United States v. Washington, 172 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 1999) (Washington II), is not to the contrary. In United States v. Washington, 66 F.3d

UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE 1911
ing that “the Sentencing Guidelines set a range of 27 to 33

months for a defendant with Bad Marriage’s offense and

criminal history level”). The district court so recognized, stating that if it were resentencing Bad Marriage under the preBooker regime, “the guideline range that would be mandatory

to be applied would be the 27 to 33 months.” 

Bad Marriage I’s mandate requiring the district court to

issue a sentence within a particular range was, however, based

on the assumption that the Guidelines were mandatory, an

assumption no longer valid post-Booker. Had the district court

followed the mandate, the sentence would have been illegal,

because it would have been imposed pursuant to a mandatory

Guidelines regime. I therefore agree with the majority that

post-Booker, the district court did not need to follow this particular directive in Bad Marriage I. 

III.

I disagree with the majority, however, that our inquiry ends

there. Bad Marriage I established more than the simple proposition that Bad Marriage should have been sentenced to

twenty-seven to thirty-three months under a mandatory

Guidelines regime. In addition, as relevant here, Bad Marriage I established that “[t]o sentence Bad Marriage to a longer prison term on the basis of [Bad Marriage’s] record would

serve no useful purpose.” 392 F.3d at 1114. 

1101 (9th Cir. 1995) (Washington I), we had “remand[ed] for the limited

purpose of recalculating [the defendant’s] base offense level under section

2J1.2, without applying the cross-reference to section 2X1.3, and resentencing him accordingly.” Id. at 1105. In Washington II, we held that

because “[t]he mandate [in Washington I] did not . . . proscribe a departure,” the district court did not err by departing. Washington II, 172 F.3d

at 1119. Here, however, the mandate expressly required the district court

to “resentenc[e] within the appropriate range,” Bad Marriage I, 392 F.3d

at 1115, not just to recalculate a base offense and resentence “accordingly.” The much more limited mandate in this case is not covered by the

holding in Washington II. 

1912 UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE
The Bad Marriage I court based its conclusion on two

grounds. First, the court observed that “[t]he underlying purposes of sentencing include not only punishment and deterrence, but also the provision of treatment to a defendant in

need of it.” Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D)). Second,

and related, the court determined that “prison alone will neither rehabilitate an individual critically in need of substance

abuse treatment, nor, in the long run, protect society against

him. Bad Marriage is such an individual.” Id. at 1115. 

Bad Marriage I relied on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D) for the

proposition that the district court should have considered the

extent to which its sentence would help rehabilitate Bad Marriage. See id. at 1114. Thus, the relevant law of the case established by Bad Marriage I was that under § 3553(a): (1) Bad

Marriage’s criminal history could not be the basis for an

increased sentence, because, absent treatment for alcoholism,

an increased sentence in his case would not serve the underlying purposes of sentencing, and (2) the need to protect society

from Bad Marriage also could not be the basis for an

increased sentence, again because, absent treatment for alcoholism, detention would serve no long term protection purpose. See Herrington, 12 F.3d at 905 (holding that an

intermediate determination made in a previous appellate decision was law of the case, stating that “the district court did not

err in concluding that our rejection of the $810,000.00 lost

value damages figure set an upper limit on the amount of the

Herringtons’ recoverable damages”). 

Under the law of the case doctrine, this panel is not to

judge whether these propositions are correct as a matter of

law or fact, unless one of the exceptions in the doctrine

applies. No new evidence was introduced on remand, and no

other changed circumstances exist. In addition, while I might

well have ruled differently had I been on the original panel,

I am not prepared to declare its rulings clear error, nor do I

believe that a manifest injustice would result by following the

panel’s rulings. The majority issues no such pronouncements

UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE 1913
either, nor has the government so argued. Thus, the only pertinent question is whether Booker so undermined the legal

basis for these rulings as to permit the district court to ignore

them on remand. 

The key propositions established by Bad Marriage I, aside

from the directive to sentence within a particular, mandatory

Guidelines range, are perfectly consistent with Booker —

indeed, somewhat prescient. Post-Booker, the district court

must consider the factors outlined in § 3553(a) in determining

its sentence, see Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 764, which is precisely

what the panel in Bad Marriage I did. And, while Booker held

that the Guidelines are advisory, it did not call into question

any principles concerning the appropriateness under § 3553(a)

of imposing lengthy prison sentences on individuals whose

crimes are traceable to alcoholism. Thus, Booker did not justify disregarding the Bad Marriage I court’s determinations

regarding the weight that should attach to Bad Marriage’s history of alcoholism and need for treatment in determining the

efficacy of a long prison sentence. See Ingle v. Circuit City,

408 F.3d 592, 594-95 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that intervening authority was not on point and therefore the district court

properly followed the law of the case). 

IV.

The district court did not follow the law of the case. In pertinent part, the district court justified its forty-eight month

sentence as follows: 

It is undisputed on this record that this defendant

has an extensive criminal record. 

And I see nothing in this record that I can point to

with any meaningful assurance that this defendant

will not offend again if given the opportunity to do

so. 

1914 UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE
This record is patently clear that Mr. Bad Marriage is capable of committing what can only and

realistically be described as brutal and degrading

acts of violence. And in this particular case, an act

of violence directed to a victim who was essentially

defenseless. . . . 

. . . .

This record demonstrates that Mr. Bad Marriage is

an extremely dangerous person, capable of inflicting

severe harm upon others, and particularly inflicting

severe harm upon others who are vulnerable and

essentially defenseless. . . . And I have yet to hear

anything in the nature of a definitive acknowledgment of any expression of pity for the person whom

[Bad Marriage] so severely harmed. . . . 

. . . .

And it is my determination that the need for punishment in this case is great — and frankly, mitigated by nothing that you, Mr. Bad Marriage, have

brought to this court’s attention.

And in my judgment, the public and your victims

have to be protected from you.

. . . .

And I want to make clear on the record that, Mr.

Bad Marriage, the sentence that I’m going to impose

is not being placed where it will be to punish you for

a drinking problem. Nor is this sentence that this

court is going to impose in any way to penalize you

for being a Native American. . . . 

This sentence that’s going to be imposed is to recognize the hostility and brutality of your act of

UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE 1915
assault upon this defenseless woman. And it is to

punish the brutal conduct that you engaged in in

which you inflicted seriously bodily harm upon her.

And it is a sentence that in the view of this court

is necessary to protect the public in the future from

your brutal and unlawful conduct.

As these statements indicate, the district court relied, in

large portion, on sentencing rationales that Bad Marriage I

expressly repudiated. The district court justified its sentence,

in part, on the ground that Bad Marriage had an “extensive

criminal history,” but Bad Marriage I stated that “[t]o sentence Bad Marriage to a longer prison term on the basis of

[his] record would serve no useful purpose.” 392 F.3d at

1114. In addition, the district court relied on its concern that

Bad Marriage would “offend again” and that “the public . . .

[must] be protected from” Bad Marriage. Bad Marriage I

held, however, that “prison alone” would not rehabilitate Bad

Marriage, nor would it “protect society against him.” Id. at

1115. 

Also, the district court refused to take into account considerations that the Bad Marriage I court prescribed. In particular, Bad Marriage I established that the district court needed

to give strong weight to Bad Marriage’s need for treatment in

devising a sentence. See id. at 1114 (noting that “[t]he underlying purposes of sentencing include . . . the provision of

treatment to a defendant in need of it”); id. (noting that “the

length and character of Bad Marriage’s criminal record is

clearly the result of a serious drinking problem”); id. at 1115

(“[P]rison alone will [not] rehabilitate an individual critically

in need of substance abuse treatment . . . . Bad Marriage is

such an individual.”). 

On remand, the district court did not consider Bad Marriage’s need for treatment at all. Instead, the district court misunderstood the Bad Marriage I court’s discussion of treatment

1916 UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE
for alcoholism. Bad Marriage I noted the necessity of providing treatment to individuals whose crimes are related to their

alcoholism and observed that “[a]lcohol abuse on Indian reservations is a social problem of devastating scope.” Id. at

1114. The district court’s only reference to this discussion in

Bad Marriage I is as follows: 

And I want to make clear on the record that, Mr.

Bad Marriage, the sentence that I’m going to impose

is not being placed where it will be to punish you for

a drinking problem. Nor is this sentence that this

court is going to impose in any way to penalize you

for being a Native American. . . . . 

The district court thus misread Bad Marriage I as standing for

the proposition that the district court could not sentence Bad

Marriage to a long sentence on the ground that Bad Marriage

had a drinking problem or was a Native American. Instead,

the relevant portion of Bad Marriage I stood for the proposition that the district court should consider goals of rehabilitation through treatment for alcoholism when issuing its

sentence. 

True, the district court did not rely solely on justifications

expressly repudiated in Bad Marriage I. The district court

also justified its sentence on the grounds that the offense was

especially brutal and that Bad Marriage was not sufficiently

remorseful, justifications that Bad Marriage I had no occasion

to address. The fact that some of the district court’s reasons

for imposing the long sentence did not violate the law of the

case does not, however, immunize the sentence for law of the

case purposes. Rather, the district court failed to follow Bad

Marriage I by relying on determinations that Bad Marriage

I repudiated and by failing to consider factors it declared relevant. 

For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that the district

court abused its discretion by not following the law of the

UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE 1917
case. Again my conclusion is not that I would have struck

down the forty-eight month sentence were I reviewing it in

the first instance, or that, had I been on the Bad Marriage I

panel, I would have decided some or all of the issues as the

panel did. Rather, my point is that the law of the case doctrine, “a judicial invention designed to aid in the efficient

operation of court affairs,” Milgard Tempering, Inc., 902 F.2d

at 715, has independent significance and must be given effect

if the federal trial and appellate courts are to function efficiently and as coherent, interconnected, but hierarchical institutions. The district courts need to follow principles

announced by courts of appeal in a particular case, absent an

acceptable reason why not, and we ourselves cannot reconsider in a second appeal issues decided in a first one, again

absent an acceptable reason for doing so. Here, the change in

the law provides a compelling reason for not sentencing

within the prescribed Guidelines range, but does not provide

an acceptable reason for not following the intermediate rulings contained in Bad Marriage I. 

I would therefore vacate the sentence and remand with

instructions that Bad Marriage be resentenced in accord with

the principles established in Bad Marriage I, described above.2

2

I would probably remand to a different judge at this juncture, because

the district court’s treatment of Bad Marriage I suggests a discomfort with

following it. See United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 785 F.2d 777,

781-82 (9th Cir. 1986). 

1918 UNITED STATES v. BAD MARRIAGE