Opinion ID: 4270549
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Resentencing Following Remand

Text: On remand, the Government proposed that the District Court impose the same sentence. See Gov’t’s Memo in Aid of Resentencing, reprinted in Appendix (“App.”) 24, 28. The Government asserted that “the jury’s conviction of the defendant of the possession of the weapon . . . , in conjunction with the circumstances of defendant’s possession of weapons and narcotics in both Maryland and in [D.C.], allow the Court to make a finding for sentencing purposes that the weapon . . . was possessed in furtherance of his drug trafficking.” Id. at 31. At the resentencing hearing, Government counsel and the District Court judge engaged in the following colloquy: GOV’T COUNSEL: . . .[I]t was not my impression, based on the last sentencing, that the Court inappropriately considered anything that it should not have considered – – THE COURT: The record was clearly not sufficiently clear. GOV’T COUNSEL: Perhaps not according to the Circuit. However, my point is: I believe the Court should do what it did the last time. I don’t think anything happened incorrectly the last 7 time and that the same analysis therefore, in essence, applies this time, aside from any lack of clarity, if there was any on that one particular point. Resentencing Transcript at 17–18. Government counsel also said: “My understanding of the D.C. Circuit’s opinion is that the Court shouldn’t speculate. Frankly, I don’t think the Court speculated last time.” Id. at 10. Despite being egged on by Government counsel, the District Court finally made it clear that it was “not relying on any particular role this defendant may or may not have had in connection with this shooting incident . . . in calculating an appropriate sentence in this case.” Id. at 12–13. The trial judge then said, “and I did not before.” Id. The District Court went on to impose the same sentence that it had imposed at the initial sentencing. After considering the evidence before it, the trial judge concluded that Kpodi had a propensity to use firearms in connection with his drug dealing activity. Accordingly, it determined that a guidelines-compliant sentence of 151 months incarceration was appropriate. Id. at 49. Kpodi now appeals his sentence for a second time. He argues that the District Court’s suggestion that it had not previously considered the unreliable shooting evidence deprived him of the resentencing he was entitled to under this court’s Kpodi I decision. According to Kpodi, this error violated this court’s mandate in Kpodi I and the law of the case. He further claims that the error caused the District Court to impose an unduly harsh sentence and was therefore prejudicial. The Government defends the new sentence as valid. 8