Opinion ID: 41961
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sentencing Guidelines Version

Text: Finally, the Puches argue that the district court erred in applying at their resentencing the Sentencing Guidelines version effective November 1, 2000, which 11 was used at their original sentencing, instead of the version effective November 1, 2001. The Puches argue the November 2000 version was incorrectly applied in their original sentencing as well as their resentencing. However, they failed to challenge the use of the November 2000 Sentencing Guidelines in their original sentencing proceedings or in their first appeal. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(g)(1),3 a district court resentencing a defendant on remand “shall apply the guidelines . . . that were in effect on the date of the previous sentencing of the defendant prior to the appeal, together with any amendments thereto by any act of Congress that was in effect on such date . . . .” Based on this provision, the district court applied the November 2000 Sentencing Guidelines utilized at the Puches’ first sentencing. Specifically, the district court stated at resentencing that Title 18, United States Code Section 3742G1 provides that if a case is remanded to a district court by the Court of Appeals, the Court is to use the guidelines that were in effect on the date of the sentence. The guideline books – the guidelines – the 2000 guidelines book should be utilized, and it will. The district court properly determined that it was required by § 3742(g)(1), as well as the mandate rule, to apply the November 2000 Sentencing Guidelines. The district court applied the November 2000 Sentencing Guidelines at the Puches’ 3 Section 3742(g)(1) is one provision of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (the PROTECT Act), which was signed into law on April 30, 2003. 12 original sentencing, and the Puches did not object or challenge on appeal the application of that version. This Court affirmed the district court’s sentencing determinations other than the failure to grant the three-point reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1(b)(2) and remanded the Puches’ cases for the limited purposes of applying the three-point reduction and sentencing within the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines range. Under these circumstances, the Puches missed their opportunity to contest the application of the November 2000 Sentencing Guidelines. The mandate rule prevented the district court from reexamining this issue on remand. See Tamayo, 80 F.3d at 1520; United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993) (stating that the mandate rule “forecloses 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”). Thus, the district court did not err in applying the November 2000 Sentencing Guidelines or in calculating Orlando Puche’s Sentencing Guidelines range as 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment and in calculating Enrique and Mauricio Puche’s sentencing range as 108 to 135 months’ imprisonment.