United States v. David Mobley, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14972

Mobley pleaded guilty in 2013 to bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344) and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1)); district court imposed concurrent supervised-release terms and a total prison term (within-Guidelines sentence).
Mobley appealed; while appeal was pending the Seventh Circuit decided United States v. Thompson, which requires district courts to state in open court the § 3553(a) reasons for supervised-release conditions.
The parties jointly moved for summary reversal and remand in light of Thompson; this court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing “in light of Thompson.”
At the second sentencing the district court treated the remand as limited to supervised-release conditions, refused to reconsider the overall sentence or hear allocution/new mitigation evidence (defense wanted to present Mobley’s GED and argue for a lower term), but did explain each supervised-release condition in open court.
The court intended to reimpose the prior prison term (161 months) but entered a judgment reflecting 171 months; Mobley appealed, arguing the remand required full resentencing (including allocution and consideration of new mitigation) and that the sentence-entry contained a clerical error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of a Thompson remand	Mobley: remand required full resentencing so court must reconsider entire sentence	Government: remand limited to supervised-release conditions only	Remand vacating sentence under Thompson is a full remand unless mandate says otherwise; district court may reconsider all elements of sentence
Consideration of new evidence/arguments	Mobley: court should have considered new mitigation (GED) and allowed new arguments	Government: court could decline to consider new material and properly gave it no weight	Court may consider new evidence/arguments but must acknowledge its authority to do so and explain its exercise of discretion if it declines
Right to allocution on resentencing	Mobley: his personal right to allocute was revived by full remand	Government: allocution not required for limited remand	On a full Thompson remand the defendant must be given opportunity for personal allocution before sentence is imposed
Clerical error in entered sentence	Mobley: judgment incorrectly recorded 171 months instead of 161	Government: agrees it was a mistake and should be corrected	Court notes the clerical error but remands for full resentencing so correction left to new proceeding

United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (requires district courts to state § 3553(a) reasons in open court for supervised-release conditions)
United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (discusses Thompson and full-resentencing rationale)
United States v. Barnes, 660 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2011) (explains full resentencing allows court to "unbundle" sentencing package)
Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Guidelines are advisory; district court must understand and exercise sentencing discretion)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural error occurs if court treats Guidelines as mandatory)
Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (vacatur and resentencing permit district court to reconfigure sentence to satisfy § 3553(a))