Opinion ID: 5135986
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The General Sentence

Text: Finally, Jacobs requests a full resentencing because the District Court imposed a “general sentence” without explaining which parts of the sentence were attributable to the three counts of conviction. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, the District Court must impose a sentence for each count. See United States v. Ward, 626 F.3d 179, 184 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(b), (c)). The Government concedes that did not occur here but argues we should merely remand for clarification rather than full resentencing. We agree. In Ward, when we determined that the Guidelines did not allow for general sentences, we simply said that we would “remand for resentencing.” Id. at 184–86. We didn’t explain whether that involved a full resentencing process or just clarification of the sentence. But we cited, id. at 185, a case from the Eleventh Circuit that “remand[ed] . . . for clarification of the sentence,” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1025 (11th Cir. 2005), and one from the D.C. Circuit instructing the district court to “specify sentences for the individual counts” while it fixed other errors in sentencing, United States v. Hall, 610 F.3d 727, 745 (D.C. Cir. 2010). A few years after Ward, in United States v. Andrews, we were more direct about what we meant by “resentencing” when we vacated the defendant’s general sentence: “[W]e will vacate . . . and remand for the limited purpose of allowing the District Court to clarify the sentence imposed on each count of conviction.” 681 F.3d 509, 532 (3d Cir. 2012). We thus follow suit by vacating and remanding Jacobs’ sentence for clarification.