Opinion ID: 186846
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A Hearing by Any Other Name

Text: 11 Watson first argues the district court failed to sentence him de novo, as required by our decision in Watson I. This argument is ultimately based upon the district court's having first denominated the hearing a status conference and having initially told Watson's counsel the proceeding would not include his resentencing. 12 This terminological objection is of no substantive moment: The parties had submitted supplemental sentencing memoranda analyzing the § 3553(a) factors, and when Watson's counsel asked whether the hearing was for sentencing and was told it was and that the court would grant his motion for sentencing de novo, she expressed no reservation about going forward. The defendant was clearly prepared to argue the matter and did so. In substance, the proceeding, whatever it was called, was a sentencing hearing at which the district court sentenced Watson de novo.