Opinion ID: 63492
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mandate Order

Text: We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of our remand order, including whether the mandate rule precludes any of the district court’s actions on remand.12 “The mandate rule requires a district court on remand to effect our mandate and to do nothing else. Further, on remand the district court must implement both the letter and the spirit of the appellate court’s mandate and may not disregard the explicit directives of that court. In implementing the 11 Bell v. Miss. Dep’t of Corr., 118 F. App’x 874, 878 (5th Cir. 2005). 12 Gen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. HAL, Inc., 500 F.3d 444, 453 (5th Cir. 2007). 5 No. 07-60154 mandate, the district court must take into account the appellate court’s opinion and the circumstances it embraces.”13 Having reviewed the long and protracted procedural history of this case, we are convinced that the district court violated neither the letter nor the spirit of our mandate when it reconsidered whether Bell’s petition was procedurally barred. The prior panel of this court held only that “there is no ‘clear and express’ statement by the Mississippi Supreme Court [in Bell III] that Bell’s double-jeopardy claim was procedurally barred under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-3921.”14 Because the district court had relied on the state supreme court’s purported holding in Bell III when it denied federal habeas review, the prior panel was compelled to reverse that court’s decision. In doing so, however, the panel did not address whether Bell’s double-jeopardy claim was procedurally barred even in the absence of a clear and express statement in Bell III, nor did it instruct the district court not to reconsider whether Bell’s petition was, in fact, procedurally barred in the light of other evidence. Given the limited scope of the prior panel’s reversal, and the circumstances surrounding Bell’s habeas challenge—especially his almost a quarter century journey through the state and federal court systems—the district court did not violate the prior panel’s mandate by reconsidering the procedural bar issue.