United States v. Luke Patterson, 878 F.3d 215

In 2014 Patterson was stopped with a stolen pistol; he pleaded guilty in state court to receiving stolen property and driving on a suspended license and pleaded guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession.
At federal sentencing the district court treated Patterson’s 2001 Ohio aggravated-robbery convictions as violent felonies under the Sentencing Guidelines but not under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
On Patterson’s first appeal this Court held Patterson’s three prior convictions qualified as violent felonies under the ACCA, reversed the district court’s contrary ruling, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing. United States v. Patterson, 853 F.3d 298 (6th Cir. 2017).
On remand Patterson argued the district court should consider all possible defenses, including that the three predicate convictions were not committed on "different occasions," and therefore did not satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
The district court viewed the prior opinion as a limited remand directing ACCA sentencing and doubted it could relitigate all issues; it alternatively rejected Patterson’s separate-occasions claim on the merits and imposed the 180-month ACCA mandatory minimum.
Patterson appealed again; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the remand was limited, Patterson had forfeited the separate-occasions argument, and, alternatively, the record (original indictment, plea finding, and prior admissions) proved the offenses occurred on different occasions.

Issue	Patterson's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Scope of remand: whether district court had to reopen all issues on resentencing	Remand was general; district court must consider any and all legal arguments	Remand was limited — this Court already found three prior violent-felony convictions and remanded for resentencing only	Held: Remand was limited; district court properly treated ACCA applicability as decided and remanded for resentencing only
Mandate rule / forfeiture: whether Patterson can relitigate an issue ripe at first appeal	Patterson may raise separate-occasions argument on remand	Argument was ripe earlier and not appealed; mandate rule bars reopening	Held: Forfeited — Patterson raised (and lost) the issue at initial sentencing and did not appeal it; mandate rule bars relitigation
Merits — whether prior convictions occurred on different occasions under ACCA (Shepard materials)	Amended indictment not docketed; available records don’t necessarily show distinct occasions; Shepard limits usable evidence	Original indictment cross-referenced in plea finding, plea colloquy and counsel’s prior concession establish distinct dates/locations	Held: Alternatively rejected on merits — Shepard-permitted records and Patterson’s prior admission show three robberies on different dates/locations, satisfying ACCA predicate requirements

United States v. Patterson, 853 F.3d 298 (6th Cir. 2017) (prior panel held Patterson had three ACCA violent-felony predicates and remanded for resentencing)
United States v. O’Dell, 320 F.3d 674 (6th Cir. 2003) (mandate-scope analysis and limited-remand principles)
United States v. Campbell, 168 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 1999) (interpreting remand language in context of entire opinion)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits on admissible documents to determine facts underpinning a guilty plea)
United States v. Southers, 866 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 2017) (what constitutes offenses committed on different occasions for ACCA)
United States v. King, 853 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2017) (limits on relying on bills of particulars versus indictments under Shepard)
United States v. Pham, 872 F.3d 799 (6th Cir. 2017) (government’s burden to prove prior convictions occurred on different occasions by a preponderance of the evidence)