United States v. Kenneth Leaming, 677 F. App'x 401

Kenneth Leaming was convicted for filing false liens against government officials, harboring fugitives, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
This appeal arises after multiple remands; the Ninth Circuit previously vacated and remanded Leaming’s sentence twice for errors in Guidelines enhancements.
On the latest remand the district court removed the U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(1) enhancement as instructed, but applied an unrelated six-level enhancement under § 3A1.2(b) to correct an earlier Guidelines calculation error.
Leaming conceded § 3A1.2(b)’s applicability on appeal but argued the district court lacked authority to correct its earlier error on remand.
Leaming also challenged the substantive reasonableness of his 97-month, above-Guidelines sentence.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court acted within its authority on remand and the above-range sentence was substantively reasonable based on the § 3553(a) factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court could apply § 3A1.2(b) on remand to correct its Guidelines error	Leaming: court lacked authority on remand to make that correction	Government: remand did not limit district court from correcting additional calculation errors	Court: district court permissibly corrected the error; not foreclosed by the mandate
Whether applying § 3A1.2(b) resulted in impermissible double-counting	Leaming: enhancement double-counted conduct	Government: enhancement distinct and lawful	Court: double-counting argument previously foreclosed; enhancement valid here
Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine barred the § 3A1.2(b) enhancement	Leaming: prior appeals should have decided § 3A1.2(b)’s applicability	Government: prior opinions did not address that enhancement	Court: law-of-the-case did not preclude the enhancement because prior decisions did not decide it
Whether the above-Guidelines 97-month sentence was substantively unreasonable	Leaming: sentence excessive because outside Guidelines range	Government: district court adequately explained variance under § 3553(a)	Court: upheld sentence; district court gave adequate reasons and deference applies

United States v. Spangle, 626 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentences)
United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court may consider any relevant sentencing matters on remand)
Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2012) (mandate rule allows lower court to decide matters not foreclosed by mandate)
United States v. Washington, 172 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 1999) (permissible correction on remand of sentencing matters not limited by mandate)
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (framework for reviewing sentence variance and deference to district court’s § 3553(a) judgment)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (affirming deference to district court’s sentencing judgment and review of variances)
United States v. Saeteurn, 504 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court may compare co-defendants to explain roles without requiring parity)