IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10279

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee 

v. 

WILLIAM RANDOLPH TISDALE, JR.; HUBERT JONES, III; LENDELL 

BEACHAM, 

 Defendants - Appellants 

 -------------------------------------- 

 consolidated with

 16-10495

 --------------------------------------- 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee 

v. 

JERMAINE FREDERICK FRAZIER, 

 Defendant - Appellant 

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

Nos. 3:09-CR-247-2 & 3:09-CR-247-10

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 6, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10279 Document: 00513899592 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2017
Nos. 16-10279 & 16-10495

2 

PER CURIAM:*

Jermaine Frederick Frazier, William Randolph Tisdale, Jr., Hubert 

Jones, III, and Lendell Beacham (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal their 

respective orders of restitution for the second time. We AFFIRM the orders of 

restitution because the district court correctly interpreted and complied with 

this court’s mandates. 

This court previously summarized the facts relevant to this appeal. See 

United States v. Frazier, 577 F. App’x 271, 271–72 (5th Cir. 2014) (Frazier I) 

(deciding Frazier’s first appeal); United States v. Beacham, 774 F.3d 267, 271–

72 (5th Cir. 2014) (deciding Tisdale, Jones, and Beacham’s first appeal).

Appellants participated in a mortgage fraud scheme involving multiple 

fraudulent real estate transactions. Frazier I, 557 F. App’x at 272; Beacham, 

774 F.3d at 271–72. Frazier pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

Frazier I, 557 F. App’x at 272. Tisdale, Jones, and Beacham were convicted by 

a jury of various counts of conspiracy, bank fraud, and wire fraud. Beacham, 

774 F.3d at 271–72. The district court sentenced Appellants to serve varying 

terms of imprisonment and pay varying amounts of restitution. Frazier I, 557 

F. App’x at 272; Beacham, 774 F.3d at 271–72.

Frazier challenged only the order of restitution in his first appeal. See 

Frazier I, 557 F. App’x at 272. This court determined that the district court 

plainly erred in calculating restitution because it failed to consider whether 

the mortgages were resold on the secondary market. Id. at 273. We vacated the 

restitution order and remanded to the district court for resentencing. Id. at 

275. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 16-10279 Document: 00513899592 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2017
Nos. 16-10279 & 16-10495

3 

In Tisdale, Jones, and Beacham’s first appeal, they challenged the 

sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions and the sentences 

imposed by the district court. Beacham, 774 F.3d at 272, 276, 278. This court 

affirmed their convictions, but we held that “the district court abused its 

discretion by using the original loan amounts to calculate restitution” for 

lenders whose mortgages were resold on the secondary market. Id. at 279. 

Because it was “unclear whether the district court weighed the restitution 

awards” in determining Appellants’ terms of imprisonment or lack of penal 

fines, we “vacate[d] the sentences in their entirety” and remanded “for 

resentencing consistent with this opinion.” Id. at 279–80.

On remand, the district court interpreted the scope of this court’s 

mandates as limited to “the narrow issue of the mortgages that were sold on 

the secondary market” and “the restitution amount calculated on these loans 

that were purchased in the secondary market”; the district court did not 

consider Appellants’ unrelated objections. The district court then excluded the 

value of the mortgages sold on the secondary market from its restitution 

calculations and imposed lower amounts of restitution. As to Tisdale, Jones, 

and Beacham, the district court re-imposed the original terms of imprisonment

and supervised release, which they do not appeal. 

Appellants argue that the district court erred in interpreting this court’s 

mandates and abused its discretion in imposing the orders of restitution. We 

review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the scope of the remand 

order. United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 320 (5th Cir. 2004). “To determine 

whether the district court complied with the mandate rule, we must determine 

the meaning of the . . . mandate.” United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 658 

(5th Cir. 2002). “This court has adopted a restrictive rule for interpreting the 

scope of the mandate in the criminal resentencing context.” Id. (citing United 

States v. Marmolejo, 139 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 1998)). On remand, the district 

 Case: 16-10279 Document: 00513899592 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/06/2017
Nos. 16-10279 & 16-10495

4 

court “may consider only that which we direct-no more, no less.” United States 

v. Pineiro, 470 F.3d 200, 205 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Marmolejo, 139 F.3d at 

530–31). 

This court focused its analysis in Frazier I exclusively on the district 

court’s failure to exclude resold mortgages from the restitution amount. See 

577 F. App’x at 273. We held that the district court plainly erred because it did 

not “account for whether the mortgages were resold” or “for secondary 

mortgage markets.” Id. In Beacham, this court vacated Appellants’ sentences 

and remanded for resentencing for the same reason—because the district court 

abused its discretion by including in its restitution calculations the original 

loan amounts of mortgages resold on the secondary market. 774 F.3d at 279. 

The district court complied with the mandates on remand by excluding 

the value of any resold mortgages from the orders of restitution. Given the 

restricted scope of this court’s decisions in Frazier I and Beacham, the district 

court correctly limited its consideration during resentencing to “the narrow 

issue of the mortgages that were sold on the secondary market.” 

Because the district court properly interpreted and complied with our 

mandates, we AFFIRM the orders of restitution. 

 Case: 16-10279 Document: 00513899592 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/06/2017