United States v. Hunter
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10440
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hunter was previously convicted of multiple drug and firearms offenses and sentenced to 30 years plus a 5-year §924(c) term.
- This court reversed Hunter’s §924(c)(1) conviction due to indictment/jury instruction errors, but affirmed other convictions and sentences.
- On remand, the government chose not to pursue the §924(c) charge, and the district court vacated the §924(c) sentence without a personal appearance or re-allocation.
- Hunter argued the district court erred by not conducting a plenary resentencing hearing.
- The majority held no sentencing remained because remand was limited to the §924(c) charge that the government declined to pursue.
- Dissent argued the remand was general, entitling de novo resentencing and right to allocution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of remand authority | Hunter | Gwin | Remand was limited to §924(c) issue; no resentencing on other counts. |
| Plenary resentencing requirement | Hunter | United States | No plenary resentencing required because no sentence remained to impose. |
| Right to allocution at resentencing | Hunter | District court | Right to allocution not addressed because no de novo resentencing occurred. |
| Use of vacated §924(c) conviction in other counts | Hunter | United States | District court did not rely on vacated §924(c) in resentencing other counts. |
| Remand framework clarity (limited vs general) | Hunter | Gwin (dissent) | Remand was effectively general; not unmistakably limited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. United States (Moore III), 131 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 1997) (establishes framework for limited vs general remand in sentencing)
- United States v. Garcia-Robles, 640 F.3d 159 (6th Cir. 2011) (remand scope and rights to resentencing on general remands)
- United States v. Campbell, 168 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 1999) (requirements for limiting remand language in sentencing orders)
- United States v. Gibbs, 626 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2010) (clarifies when remand language is unmistakably limiting)
- Wasman v. United States, 468 U.S. 559 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (recognizes limits on post-sentence considerations)
- Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (U.S. Supreme Court 2011) (district courts may consider post-sentencing factors affecting variance or upward/downward adjustments)