Opinion ID: 49921
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Patterson’s Claims

Text: On appeal, Patterson first contends that this Court’s limited mandate in the first appeal violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause because it denied him the right to make the government sustain its burden of proof as to the drug quantities attributed to him. This argument is without merit. Patterson had the opportunity at his first sentencing to hold the government to its burden of proof by objecting to the factual statements in the PSI relating to the amount of drug involved in the conspiracy. Patterson did not do so, instead relying solely on his Blakely argument. Likewise, Patterson asserted only his Blakely argument in his first appeal. As we concluded in Patterson’s first appeal, because Patterson failed to object to the PSI’s factual statements as to drug quantities at his initial sentencing, the district court properly deemed them admitted by Patterson 6 and considered them in calculating Patterson’s Guidelines range. See United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330 (11 th Cir. 2005) (concluding that, because the defendant did not object to the factual findings in the PSI as to relevant conduct, those factual findings were deemed admitted and properly used to enhance the defendant’s sentence). Consequently, the district court’s drug quantity findings became the law of the case, and Patterson was precluded from relitigating those drug quantities on remand. Under the circumstances, our limited mandate on remand was proper and did not violate Patterson’s constitutional rights. Furthermore, none of the exceptions to the law-of-the-case doctrine applies to the district court’s factual findings as to drug quantity. First, Patterson did not present any new evidence with regard to the drug quantities attributed to him at resentencing. Second, although Booker was decided between the time of Patterson’s initial sentencing and his first appeal, Patterson made a Blakely claim at his initial sentencing and in his first appeal. This Court reviewed de novo his Blakely-Booker claim. Thus, none of these “intervening” changes dictate a different result than that found by the district court. Third, we cannot say that either the district court’s drug quantity findings or this Court’s limited remand in the first appeal were clearly erroneous. Given this Court’s limited mandate on remand, the district court properly 7 refused to reconsider its drug quantity findings in resentencing Patterson. Patterson 210-month sentence is affirmed. AFFIRMED. 8