United States v. Leonard Moore, 634 F. App'x 483

HMC operated across multiple states; Moore and Jarrell sold drugs and stole/resold motorcycles as part of the Nagi conspiracy.
Moore was convicted of RICO counts, VICAR, conspiracy to transport stolen property, conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, and use of a gun; initially sentenced to 228 months (with various terms running concurrently or consecutively).
Jarrell was convicted of RICO conspiracy and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances; initial sentence was 118 months on each count, to run concurrently.
On remand from Donovan for resentencing, Moore received 108 months on counts 1, 2, 9, 60 months on counts 15 and 19, and 8 years on count 33; Jarrell received 108 months on count 2 and 60 months on count 19, concurrent.
Donovan ordered resentencing on count 19 to a five-year maximum and instructed consideration of Alleyne for count 33; district court treated remand as general, but Moore challenges the interpretation.
Following appeal, the court affirms both defendants’ convictions and sentences on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether remand on count 19 was limited or general	Moore contends remand was limited, affecting sentencing scope	Moore argues district court overstepped by treating remand as general	Remand treated as general; however error did not invalidate sentence
Whether eight-year count 33 sentence violates Alleyne	Alleyne requires jury findings for increased minimums	Judge’s findings did not raise minimum; error not controlling	Sentence on count 33 affirmed; did not increase mandatory minimum based on judge-found fact
Did denial of Jarrell's new trial motion hold	Error in jury instruction on count 19 could warrant new trial	Implicit harmless-error review supports denial	No new trial required; law-of-the-case supports confirmation of convictions
Was Jarrell's count two sentence procedurally reasonable	Discretion to consider 92.89 kg under guidelines was proper	Remand should limit consideration to 50 kg as Donovan did for count 19	Sentence not procedurally unreasonable; district court properly considered applicable weight
Should there be remand for § 3582(c)(2) proceeding	Guideline amendment 782 warrants remand for potential reduction	Motion already pending; no remand needed	No remand needed; § 3582(c)(2) motion already before district court

United States v. Dale, 178 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 1999) (limited verdict ambiguity requires shortest maximum for conspiracy penalties)
United States v. Moon, 513 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2008) (Alleyne-style review for mandatory minimums on firearm use)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (Supreme Court 2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
United States v. Johnson, 732 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2013) (consideration of drug weights under guidelines after remand varies by counts)
United States v. Sedore, 512 F.3d 819 (6th Cir. 2008) (preclusion of challenges based on stipulated drug quantities)
Campbell v. United States, 168 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 1999) (law-of-the-case doctrine governs appellate/ district court determinations)
Thomas v. United States, 167 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion standard for resentencing)
United States v. Ursery, 109 F.3d 1129 (6th Cir. 1997) (guideline amendments and retroactive relief considerations)