United States v. Kaliph Whitlow, 740 F.3d 433

Whitlow pled guilty in 2011 to two crack cocaine distribution counts and was sentenced to 262 months prior to the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) effective date.
After the Supreme Court decided Dorsey v. United States, the Seventh Circuit vacated Whitlow’s sentence and remanded for resentencing under Dorsey and the FSA.
On remand, the district court recalculated Whitlow’s advisory guidelines to 188–235 months and Whitlow sought a 144-month sentence, arguing against the career offender designation and for incremental punishment.
At remand, Whitlow’s motion included arguments about BOP credit and rehabilitation, which the district court did not initially resolve; the court later reduced the sentence by 18 months for rehabilitation.
The district court ultimately sentenced Whitlow to 170 months, and Whitlow appealed, challenging the procedural handling of mitigation and the BOP credit issue.
The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for a limited purpose to allow the district court to consider adjusting the sentence to account for eight months of pretrial detention credit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by not adjusting for pretrial custody	Whitlow argues the court misapprehended its discretion and should credit eight months of pretrial detention.	Government contends the mitigation issue was not preserved on remand and may be deemed waived; any adjustment was discretionary.	Remanded for limited consideration of the pretrial custody credit adjustment.
Whether the district court properly considered Whitlow's mitigation arguments on remand	Whitlow contends the court should consider career-offender critique and incremental punishment arguments.	Government contends these issues were waived or beyond remand scope, but would not bar consideration if properly raised.	Court did not commit procedural error; mitigation arguments were considered on remand.
Scope of the remand and whether new arguments could be raised on remand	Whitlow argues remand allowed new arguments necessary to effectuate sentencing intent.	Government argues that only issues raised on appeal and within remand scope may be reconsidered.	Remand authorized addressing necessary issues to effectuate sentencing; issues beyond scope remained permissible if raised on remand.

Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (Supreme Court 2012) (clarified application of the Fair Sentencing Act to post-enactment sentencing)
Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (Supreme Court 2011) (sentencing factors guide scope of remand and reconfiguration of sentence)
Barnes v. United States, 660 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2011) (general remands allow district courts to reconfigure sentences to satisfy § 3553(a))
Schroeder v. United States, 536 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2008) (waiver and remand considerations in sentencing disputes)
United States v. Campbell, 617 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2010) (district court has discretion to adjust for sentencing errors when BOP credit is at issue)