United States v. Julio Rolon, 511 F. App'x 883

Rolon and Ortiz were convicted on seven counts, including Count 5 for conspiracy to use, carry, and possess a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and (o).
On initial appeal, the panel affirmed most convictions and sentences but vacated Count 5, remanding for resentencing on Count 5 because it exceeded the 240-month maximum under § 924(o).
On remand, the district court limited resentencing to Count 5 and imposed 240 months on Count 5, concurrent with other counts, leaving the rest of the sentences intact.
The Defendants appealed again, challenging life sentences on several other counts and arguing Eighth Amendment concerns, but argued the remand limited to Count 5 should bar such challenges.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the mandate and law-of-the-case doctrines barred challenges to non-remanded counts and upheld the Count 5 sentence as reasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mandate and law of the case bar challenges	Rolon and Ortiz rely on broader remand scope to relitigate other counts.	Remand was limited to Count 5; life sentences on other counts should be reconsidered.	Barred by mandate rule and law of the case doctrine; issues on other counts not revisited.
Substantive reasonableness of Count 5 240-month sentence	Sentence warranted by offense seriousness and deterrence; procedural rule errors harmless.	Should have downward variance for post-sentencing rehabilitation and institutional record.	Not unreasonable; district court did not abuse discretion; no downward variance warranted.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (establishes abuse-of-discretion standard for review of sentences)
United States v. Davis, 329 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2003) (mandate rule governs remand scope and limits reconsideration)
Tamayo, 80 F.3d 1514 (11th Cir. 1996) (law-of-the-case doctrine and remand limitations explained)
Rolon I, 445 F. App’x 314 (11th Cir. 2011) (prior reversal and remand for Count 5 sentencing; authority cited)
Jordan, 429 F.3d 1032 (11th Cir. 2005) (law-of-the-case doctrine bars relitigation of decided issues)
Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556 (11th Cir. 1997) (law-of-the-case doctrine applicability explained)
Willis, 956 F.2d 248 (11th Cir. 1992) (Eighth Amendment challenges to certain penalties discussed)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (cruel and unusual punishment considerations for long prison terms)
Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1980) (upholding long-term sentences under certain statutes)