Court Opinion

ID: 9912566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 19:00:48.28495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:17.237657
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20116         Document: 00517011760             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/22/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                     FILED
                                                                               December 22, 2023
                                       No. 23-20116                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Anurag Dass,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:17-CR-649-2
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Anurag Dass pleaded guilty of aiding and abetting the receipt of a
   $7,710 healthcare kickback and one count of money laundering and was sen-
   tenced to 24 months of imprisonment, two years of supervised release, and
   restitution of $2,242,89. The district court also ordered her to pay forfeiture
   of $500,000 and imposed a money judgment of $928,621.16. In her first dir-
   ect appeal, this court affirmed the $500,000 forfeiture but vacated and
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20116      Document: 00517011760           Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/22/2023

                                     No. 23-20116

   remanded for recalculation of the money judgment and entry of a corrected
   order. United States v. Dass, No. 22-20025, 2023 WL 1529713, 1-2 (5th Cir.
   Feb. 3, 2023). On remand, the government moved for a corrected order
   reflecting the forfeiture of the seized $500,000 and omitting the personal
   money judgment. The district court entered a corrected order of forfeiture,
   and Dass appealed.
          The government filed a motion to dismiss Dass’s appeal as barred by
   the appeal waiver in her plea agreement. This court denied the motion in
   part as to Dass’s claim that her guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary
   and ordered that the motion to dismiss her remaining claims be carried with
   the case.
          The government asserts that Dass waived the claims she raises in this
   appeal by not raising them in her first appeal. Under the mandate rule, which
   is a specific application of the law of the case doctrine, the district court may
   not revisit “an issue of law or fact previously decided on appeal and not re-
   submitted to the trial court on remand.” United States v. Pineiro, 470 F.3d
   200, 205 (5th Cir. 2006). Thus, “as a general rule, only those discrete, par-
   ticular issues identified by the appeals court for remand are properly before
   the resentencing court.” United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir.
   2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “All other issues not
   arising out of this court’s ruling and not raised in the appeals court, which
   could have been brought in the original appeal, are not proper for reconsid-
   eration by the district court.” Id. at 323 (internal quotation marks and cita-
   tion omitted).
          The instant appeal after remand is limited to issues arising from the
   corrected forfeiture order. See Lee, 358 F.3d at 323. Because this court af-
   firmed the $500,000 forfeiture in the first appeal, Dass may not challenge it
   in this appeal. See United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir.

                                          2
Case: 23-20116      Document: 00517011760            Page: 3    Date Filed: 12/22/2023

                                      No. 23-20116

   2002). Dass waived the issues currently raised in her second appeal by failing
   to raise them in her first direct appeal. See Lee, 358 F.3d at 323.
          Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. The government’s mo-
   tion to dismiss and its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief
   are DENIED.

                                           3