United States v. Jesse Pawlak
711 F. App'x 314
6th Cir.2017Background
- Pawlak pled guilty to four counts of unlawful possession of firearms/ammunition as a felon and was originally sentenced to 105 months.
- On direct appeal Pawlak argued (1) the Guidelines residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) was void for vagueness post-Johnson and (2) the district court erred applying a four-level § 2K2.1(b)(5) trafficking enhancement.
- This Court agreed the Guidelines’ residual clause was invalid and vacated the sentence only as to that error, but affirmed the trafficking enhancement on the merits and remanded for resentencing limited to the Johnson-related issue.
- On remand the district court read the mandate as limited, conducted a focused resentencing (heard proffers, considered memoranda), left the four-level trafficking enhancement in place, and imposed a 71-month sentence.
- Pawlak appealed the limited remand, arguing the district court should have conducted a full de novo resentencing and held an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pawlak) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of remand / mandate rule | Remand vacating sentence requires full de novo resentencing; district court erred by limiting review | Appellate mandate was narrow — remand only to correct the Johnson-related career-offender issue; district court correctly followed it | Court: Mandate was limited; district court properly confined resentencing to the Johnson issue and followed law of the case |
| Law of the case — may district court revisit issues decided on appeal? | Law of the case should not bar full resentencing; district court may reexamine prior findings on remand | Court may limit reconsideration when appellate opinion resolves merits and remand is narrow | Held: District court had discretion but reasonably declined to re-litigate issues the panel decided on the merits |
| Evidentiary hearing at resentencing | Pawlak was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing to reargue enhancement application | District court correctly allowed proffers and written memoranda; no live evidentiary hearing required on limited remand | Held: No evidentiary hearing required on this limited remand; proffers sufficed and no prejudice shown |
| Reexamination of trafficking enhancement | Pawlak sought reconsideration of the § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement | Government defended prior finding and asked court to enforce enhancement as affirmed on appeal | Held: Enhancement was properly found originally; district court permissibly declined to reexamine it on limited remand |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moore, 131 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 1997) (mandate-rule review standard)
- United States v. Moored, 38 F.3d 1419 (6th Cir. 1994) (law of the case and remand guidance)
- United States v. McFalls, 675 F.3d 599 (6th Cir. 2012) (limited remand requires unmistakable language)
- United States v. Campbell, 168 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 1999) (factors for limited remand)
- United States v. O'Dell, 320 F.3d 674 (6th Cir. 2003) (reading mandate in context of opinion supports limited remand)
- United States v. Duso, 42 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 1994) (presumption of de novo resentencing unless mandate limits scope)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (held Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenge)