The court of appeals remanded for resentencing, a step the district court accomplished before the mandate issued. The court of appeals disapproved this action but held that the district court had not exceeded its jurisdiction. It gave two reasons, one practical and the second precedential. P. 35 while an appeal is pending, and the panel in Stafford saw no difference in principle if the revision follows the appellate decision. Neither of Stafford's rationales persuades us.
Jurisdiction is unlike quantum mechanics.
Judicial power needs a more predictable basis. Otherwise time, energy, and money will be wasted because later events will require hearings to be held anew and opinions rewritten. If the losing party does not seek rehearing and wants the case to proceed with dispatch on remand, it may ask the court of appeals to issue the mandate before its scheduled date. The prosecutor did not take any such step in our case, and the district court issued its decision while the United States still had time to seek rehearing. Stafford and Ortega issue.