United States v. Davila-Felix, 763 F.3d 105

Dávila was convicted in 2009 of bank robbery and related weapons offenses; the court sentenced him to life under the three strikes statute and 84 months for the firearms count, to be served consecutively.
On appeal, this court remanded for resentencing after concluding the three strikes sentence and related enhancements were improper.
At remand, the district court found Dávila to be a career offender based on prior convictions and imposed a total sentence of 420 months (300 for Count One, 120 for Count Two).
The court found a 1993 second-degree murder and a 2004 armed bank robbery as career offender predicates, relying in part on a June 1993 drug conviction to support the enhancement.
Dávila challenges the district court’s consideration of additional evidence on remand, arguing it violated the law of the case and the scope of remand; the First Circuit reviews the sentencing decision de novo for legal error.
The central issue is whether new, newly relevant evidence and arguments could be considered at resentencing after remand when the government initially failed to prove an enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether remand permitted new evidence on the enhancement	Dávila argues remand was limited; government waiver occurred.	Dávila contends Ticchiarelli should limit new evidence; governance favors no second bite.	Yes, newly relevant evidence allowed; remand allowed considering new arguments relevant to career offender.
Whether the government waived the career offender argument	Dávila claims government waived by not raising at first sentencing.	Government never forfeited; Ticchiarelli supports new relevance at remand.	Waiver did not bar; remand made career offender newly relevant.
Whether the June 1993 conviction can support career offender on remand	Record insufficient at first sentencing; not newly relevant.	Evidence becomes newly relevant after appellate reversal of life sentence.	Yes, evidence newly relevant; permissible to consider at resentencing.
Whether the mandate rule/summary limits blocked reconsideration	Rule bars relitigation of issues decided on appeal.	Remand scope allowed considering newly relevant issues.	District court acted within the mandate; not barred from considering new evidence.

United States v. Ticchiarelli, 171 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1999) (newly relevant arguments may be admitted on remand when not precluded by the mandate)
United States v. Atehortva, 69 F.3d 679 (2d Cir. 1995) (new grounds for an enhancement may be raised where not argued previously due to changed circumstances)
United States v. Montero-Montero, 370 F.3d 121 (1st Cir. 2004) (remand allowed further factfinding for a self-initiated enhancement; not barred by waiver)
United States v. Bell, 988 F.2d 247 (1st Cir. 1993) (mandate scope prevents relitigation absent exceptional circumstances)
United States v. Whren, 111 F.3d 956 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (discusses scope of remand and new arguments after appellate decision)