[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No s . 13

- 10396 , 13

- 10397, 13

- 10442 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No s . 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 , MART IN and KRAVITCH , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-10396 Date Filed: 08/16/2013 Page: 1 of 42 In this consolidated appeal, Lamar Sintel Pringle appeals both his sentence s imposed for his health

- care fraud convictions, as well as his sentences imposed for violatin g his supervised release. Pring le received c oncurrent 87

- month sentence s 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. Pring le’s sentences for his supervised release are to b e served consecutively to his 87

- month sentence s . Each of the sentences w as 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 e vidence 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 situati on 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 o bjection,” as was the case here , “it has the burden of

Case: 13-10396 Date Filed: 08/16/2013 Page: 2 of 43 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 t hat 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 (1 1th 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 sent ence.” 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 prese ntation 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 sit uation here. Pri ngle 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 44 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