United States v. Dávila-Félix, 763 F.3d 105

Dávila was convicted in 2009 of bank robbery (Count One) and brandishing a firearm (Count Two) and received life and 84-month minimum sentences under three strikes and related statute.
On appeal from the first sentence, this court remanded for resentencing after holding the April 2004 armed robbery conviction failed to qualify as a predicate offense.
At resentencing, the government introduced new evidence, including a 1993 June conviction, to support a career offender enhancement, which the district court then applied.
Dávila had prior Puerto Rico convictions, including a 1993 second-degree murder and a 2004 armed bank robbery, relevant to the career offender analysis.
This court held the first sentencing misapplied the law and remanded; on remand the district court could consider newly relevant evidence under the mandate.
The court ultimately affirmed the resentencing, finding the evidence made the career offender enhancement newly relevant and properly considered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether new evidence at resentencing was properly allowed	Dávila argues new evidence should be barred by law of the case/mandate.	Davila contends the government should not be allowed new evidence post-remand.	Newly relevant evidence properly allowed.
Scope of remand and law of the case	Remand limited to issues identified in Davila I.	Remand allowed broader consideration of career offender evidence.	Remand scope allowed consideration of newly relevant evidence.
Waiver and Ticchiarelli applicability	Government waiver; Ticchiarelli restricts new arguments at resentencing.	Ticchiarelli allows newly relevant arguments when decision makes them relevant.	Ticchiarelli applied; government not waived; evidence newly relevant.
Whether the government could rely on a career offender enhancement on remand	Career offender was not properly supported at first sentencing and should not be revisited.	Career offender enhancement became newly relevant after appellate reversal of life sentence.	Career offender enhancement properly considered on remand.
Alleyne and instructional challenges	Counterpoint to potential Alleyne error for Count Two.	Alleyne claim preserved but not argued; plain-error review applicable.	Alleyne issue deemed forfeited/harmless for plain-error review.

Ticchiarelli, 171 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1999) (new grounds may be considered on remand if newly relevant by appellate decision)
Whren, 111 F.3d 956 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (new arguments allowed if newly relevant by decision)
Atehortva, 69 F.3d 679 (2d Cir. 1995) (government may articulate new grounds for an enhancement on resentencing)
Montero-Montero, 370 F.3d 121 (1st Cir. 2004) (district court may develop record further at resentencing when enhancement not previously supported)
Bell, 988 F.2d 247 (1st Cir. 1993) (mandate rule limits relitigation; exceptions may apply otherwise)
Genao-Sánchez, 525 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2008) (interpretation of mandate and remand scope; law of the case considerations)
Moran, 393 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (mandate scope and remand questions in sentencing appeals)