Opinion ID: 1453433
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: McMannus

Text: McMannus received a downward variance from an advisory guidelines range of 57 to 71 months to a sentence of 24 months, a 58 percent reduction, equivalent to a decrease of eight offense levels. The Government argues that the district court erred in relying on evidence of McMannus's post-sentencing rehabilitation at the resentencing hearing. Where this court vacates a sentence and remands for resentencing, the district court upon resentencing may hear any relevant evidence that it could have heard at the first sentencing hearing. United States v. Jenners, 473 F.3d 894, 899 (8th Cir.2007). However, evidence of . . . post-sentencing rehabilitation is not relevant and will not be permitted at resentencing because the district court could not have considered that evidence at the time of the original sentencing. Id. In McMannus's case, the district court heard extensive and compelling evidence about McMannus's post-sentencing rehabilitation and admittedly relied on that evidence in pronouncing his new sentence. McMannus Resent. Tr. at 65, 72. Because the district court gave significant weight to McMannus's post-sentencing rehabilitation, an impermissible factor, we must vacate McMannus's sentence and remand for resentencing. See United States v. Bonahoom, 484 F.3d 1003, 1006 (8th Cir.2007) (A sentencing court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.) (quotation omitted). The district court also announced that it would impose the same sentence on McMannus even had it not considered the evidence related to his post-sentencing rehabilitation. McMannus Resent. Tr. at 72. However, any harmless error analysis is precluded because the record on resentencing (excluding the impermissible evidence of post-sentencing rehabilitation) is substantially identical to the record at McMannus's first sentencing. [4] A panel of this Court has already held that a 24-month sentence is unreasonable based on that record. See McMannus, 436 F.3d at 875. Therefore, a 24-month sentence on the same record cannot be affirmed by a new panel. See United States v. Collins, 321 F.3d 691, 698 n. 5 (8th Cir.2003). We reiterate the prior panel's holding that, while a downward variance from the advisory guidelines range certainly may be warranted, the 58 percent or eight-level reduction pronounced by the district court is unreasonable on this record. Cf. United States v. Jensen, 493 F.3d 997, 997 (8th Cir.2007) (A reduction of six guideline ranges is significant in the context of an advisory guideline system where the degree of most aggravating and mitigating adjustments is two, three, or four offense levels.).