UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4523

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

SIGMUND DIAOLA JAMES, a/k/a Sig,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior

District Judge. (5:08-cr-00944-MBS-1)

Submitted: November 18, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States 

Attorney, J.D. Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

A federal jury convicted Sigmund Diaola James of 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute 

cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 

(2006); nineteen counts of use of a communication facility in 

furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 843 (2006); two counts of possession with intent to 

distribute and distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006); possession of a firearm in furtherance 

of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c) (2006); money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1956(a) (2006); and two counts of possession with intent to 

distribute cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 860 (2006). The district court originally sentenced 

James to life imprisonment. In his first appeal, James 

challenged the district court’s denial of his suppression 

motion, the court’s use of a cross-reference for murder as 

relevant conduct under the Sentencing Guidelines, and the 

proportionality of the sentence to his offenses. We affirmed 

the convictions, but vacated the sentence and remanded for 

resentencing as we concluded that the district court erred in 

applying the cross-reference for murder under the Guidelines. 

See United States v. Sellers, 512 F. App’x 319, 330-32 (4th 

Cir.) (unpublished), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2786 (U.S. 2013). 
3

Prior to the resentencing hearing, James filed several 

objections to the presentence report, including objections to 

the drug weight; enhancements for his role in the offense and 

possession of a firearm; and the failure to reduce the 

applicable offense level for James’ acceptance of 

responsibility. The district court, however, declined to

conduct a de novo sentencing hearing and adopted its previous 

findings on the issues that James had raised at the original 

sentencing hearing. The court then again sentenced James to a 

total of life imprisonment and James now appeals. For the 

reasons that follow, we affirm.

James argues on appeal that the district court erred 

in failing to conduct a de novo resentencing hearing and failing 

to consider his Guidelines challenges, as this court’s mandate 

did not indicate a limited remand. “We review de novo the 

district court’s interpretation of the mandate.” United 

States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 283 (4th Cir. 2012). “The mandate 

rule governs what issues the lower court is permitted to 

consider on remand—it is bound to carry out the mandate of the 

higher court, but may not reconsider issues the mandate laid to 

rest.” Id. Where a remand for resentencing fails to impose 

any further limitations, “resentencing may proceed de novo, 

constrained only by the constitutional bar against 

vindictiveness, . . . the controlling statutes, and the 
4

Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 

F.3d 1143, 1149 n.4 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. 

Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 67 (4th Cir. 1993)).

However, the mandate rule also prohibits “litigation 

of issues decided by the district court but foregone on appeal 

or otherwise waived, for example because they were not raised in 

the district court.” Susi, 674 F.3d at 283 (citation omitted). 

Moreover, under the mandate rule, “any issue that could have 

been but was not raised on appeal is waived and thus not 

remanded.” Doe v. Chao, 511 F.3d 461, 465 (4th Cir. 2007) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also S. 

Atl. Ltd. P’ship of Tenn. v. Riese, 356 F.3d 576, 583 (4th Cir. 

2004) (mandate rule “forecloses litigation of issues decided by 

the district court but foregone on appeal or otherwise waived”) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Here, the issues James sought to raise on resentencing 

were all waived. With respect to his challenges to the drug 

weight and the firearm enhancement, he raised those challenges 

at the first sentencing hearing, but failed to raise them on 

appeal. They were thus not remanded to the district court. See

Chao, 511 F.3d at 465. In addition, James failed to raise the 

remaining issues at the first sentencing hearing and likewise 

failed to raise them on appeal. Those arguments were therefore 

also waived. See Susi, 674 F.3d at 283. We thus conclude that 
5

the district court did not err in declining to consider those 

arguments on resentencing following this court’s remand of the 

sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED