United States v. Jermaine Cordova, 692 F. App'x 692

Cordova pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(e)); originally sentenced to 420 months under ACCA enhancement.
While his first appeal was pending, Johnson v. United States invalidated the ACCA residual clause; the Government moved to remand and the panel granted vacatur and remand for resentencing.
On remand the district court found the ACCA enhancement gone, noted the Guidelines range would be 360 months to life but the statutory maximum was 120 months, and sentenced Cordova to 120 months.
Cordova preserved objections to earlier Guidelines rulings but did not reargue them; on appeal he challenged the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the 120‑month sentence based on several Guidelines issues.
The Government argued those Guidelines issues were waived by the mandate rule and alternatively that any Guidelines error was harmless because the district court expressly stated it would impose the same 120‑month sentence as an alternative variant sentence.
The Fourth Circuit declined to revisit its earlier denial of the Government’s dismissal motion, reviewed the harmlessness argument, and affirmed the 120‑month sentence as substantively reasonable and any Guidelines errors harmless.

Issue	Cordova's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred in Guidelines calculations/procedural sentencing	Cordova contends the district court misapplied several Guidelines provisions and thus committed procedural error	Government contends issues were waived under mandate rule; alternatively any error is harmless because court would have imposed same alternative variant sentence	Court found any Guidelines error harmless given district court’s clear alternative variant sentence and declined to revisit mandate rule dismissal request
Whether 120‑month sentence is substantively reasonable	Cordova argues an upward variant is not justified if Guidelines issues resolved in his favor	Government argues district court adequately considered § 3553(a) and the 120‑month sentence is reasonable	Court held sentence would be substantively reasonable even if Guidelines issues decided for Cordova, so affirmed
Whether assumed Guidelines errors require resentencing	Cordova seeks resentencing if Guidelines errors exist	Government asserts harmless‑error doctrine: district court’s explicit alternative sentence satisfies clear‑statement requirement and precludes resentencing	Court applied harmlessness analysis and declined to set aside sentence, affirming judgment

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause)
Doe v. Chao, 511 F.3d 461 (4th Cir. 2007) (mandate‑rule waiver principle)
Gomez‑Jimenez v. United States, 750 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2014) (harmlessness where district court would reach same result despite Guidelines error)
Savillon‑Matute v. United States, 636 F.3d 119 (4th Cir. 2011) (no need to vacate sentence when district court states it would impose same sentence)
McDonald v. United States, 850 F.3d 640 (4th Cir. 2017) (standard for assumed‑error harmlessness & substantive reasonableness review)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (deferential appellate review of sentencing decisions)