[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

Nos. 13-10396, 13-10397, 13-10442

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 4:06-cr-00013-MP-1, 4:05-cr-00020-MP-WCS-1, 

1:12-cr-00018-MP-GRJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LAMAR SINTEL PRINGLE, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(August 16, 2013)

Before MARCUS, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-10396 Date Filed: 08/16/2013 Page: 1 of 4 
2

In this consolidated appeal, Lamar Sintel Pringle appeals both his sentences

imposed for his health-care fraud convictions, as well as his sentences imposed for 

violating his supervised release. Pringle received concurrent 87-month sentences

after he pleaded guilty to one count each of conspiracy to commit health-care fraud

and health-care fraud. He received concurrent ten-month and fourteen-month 

sentences for violation of his supervised release. Pringle’s sentences for his 

supervised release are to be served consecutively to his 87-month sentences. Each 

of the sentences was determined during the course of a single sentencing hearing in 

July 2013. 

Pringle says the district court miscalculated his sentence for conspiracy to 

commit health-care fraud because it gave a two-level sentencing enhancement

under United States Sentencing Guideline § 3B1.1(c) for his role in the offense. 

Specifically, Pringle asserts that the government did not present evidence sufficient 

to support the enhancement. 

“The district judge’s determination of a convicted defendant’s role in the 

offense is a factual finding subject to clearly erroneous review, but the application 

of a guideline to a particular factual situation is a question of law that we review de 

novo.” United States v. Alred, 144 F.3d 1405, 1421 (11th Cir. 1998). “When the 

government seeks to apply an enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines over a 

defendant’s factual objection,” as was the case here, “it has the burden of 

Case: 13-10396 Date Filed: 08/16/2013 Page: 2 of 4 
3

introducing sufficient and reliable evidence to prove the necessary facts by a 

preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Washington, 714 F.3d 1358, 

1361 (11th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted). 

The government concedes that the evidence in the record did not support the 

imposition of the two-level sentencing enhancement at issue. Therefore, “a remand 

is required unless the government can establish that the error is harmless.” United 

States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980, 1013 (11th Cir. 2008). The government does not 

argue that the error is harmless. 

The government requests we allow both parties to present new evidence on 

remand. We have “broad discretion to fashion an appropriate mandate on remand 

after the vacatur of a sentence.” United States v. Martinez, 606 F.3d 1303, 1304 

(11th Cir. 2010). “Consonant with this broad discretion, we have often held that a 

general vacatur of a sentence by default allows for resentencing de novo.” Id. 

We have declined to allow the presentation of new evidence in cases where 

the government had ample notice of the defendant’s sentencing objection and a full 

opportunity to introduce the relevant evidence in the district court. See

Washington, 714 F.3d at 1362. However, that is not the situation here. Pringle did 

not make any written objections to the draft Presentence Investigation Report 

based on this enhancement. Neither did Pringle make any written objections to the 

Final Presentence Investigation Report. He did not raise this objection until the 

Case: 13-10396 Date Filed: 08/16/2013 Page: 3 of 4 
4

sentencing hearing. Therefore, both parties should have the opportunity to address 

this issue anew. 

We vacate Pringle’s sentence in its entirety and remand to the district court 

for a new sentencing hearing. 

VACATE AND REMAND.

Case: 13-10396 Date Filed: 08/16/2013 Page: 4 of 4