United States v. John Jingles, 682 F.3d 811

Jingles was convicted after a jury trial on multiple cocaine-related offenses, receiving an aggregate term of 520 years plus three life sentences on counts including 21 and 22.
On direct appeal, this court affirmed and later remanded to delete some multiplicious counts that did not affect overall sentencing.
Jingles filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion; the magistrate judge recommended denial and the district court adopted that recommendation after de novo review.
A certificate of appealability was granted on whether the verdict forms in Counts 21 and 22 constructively amended the indictment in violation of the Fifth Amendment, including whether Jingles defaulted this issue.
Counts 21 and 22 charged possession with intent to distribute over 500 grams of cocaine (powder) per the indictment; the superseding indictment framed the charges; trial verdict forms included special interrogatories about cocaine powder vs base and gram-level thresholds.
The court discusses the historical distinction between amendments and variances, and notes relevant authorities (Stirone, Bain, Cotton, Von Stoll, Gaither) to evaluate whether the prior panel’s ruling constitutes the law of the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counts 21–22 constructively amended the indictment	Jingles contends constructive amendment violated Stirone and the indictment's scope.	United States argues the variance/constructive amendment issue was resolved or harmless.	Law of the case controls; prior panel’s ruling forecloses relief on constructive amendment.
Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine bars relitigation on §2255	Jingles seeks relitigation of the same issue raised on direct appeal.	Government argues doctrine applies; issue resolved previously.	Yes; law of the case bars relitigation.
What standard governs review (plain error vs automatic reversal) for this issue	Constructive amendment mandates automatic reversal under Bain/Stirone.	Cotton applies plain-error review; automatic reversal not required.	Cotton governs plain-error review; relief denied under law-of-the-case framework.

United States v. Cotton, 535 F.3d 625 (U.S. 2002) (plain-error review; constructive amendment not automatic reversal)
Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (U.S. 1960) (indictment accuracy and grand jury charge; constructive amendment concept)
Gaither v. United States, 413 F.2d 1061 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (historic concepts of amendment vs variance; construct. amendment as variance with prejudice considerations)
Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1887) (origins of automatic reversal rule for amendments to indictment)
Von Stoll, 726 F.2d 584 (9th Cir. 1984) (proposed distinction between amendment and variance)
United States v. Jordan, 429 F.3d 1032 (11th Cir. 2005) (law-of-the-case applicability in similar contexts)