United States v. Rondell Hammonds
703 F. App'x 161
4th Cir.2017Background
- Rondell Hammonds was originally sentenced to 163 months, receiving credit for time served on both a discharged and an undischarged state term under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines §§ 5G1.3(b) and 5K2.23.
- This Court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal in an earlier decision.
- Hammonds obtained relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, prompting the district court to resentence him.
- At resentencing the district court reduced the term to 96 months but refused to grant the same credit for the now-discharged state sentence.
- Hammonds appealed, arguing the district court was bound by this Court’s prior mandate to apply the same credit it awarded at the initial sentencing.
- The district court explained that the legal landscape had materially changed (citing Johnson), requiring a fresh § 3553(a) analysis at resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court was bound by the prior appellate mandate to apply the same credit for state time at resentencing | Hammonds: prior mandate required the same credit be applied on resentencing | Government/District Court: resentencing after vacatur was de novo; court could reassess credit in light of changed legal landscape | Court held the mandate rule did not bar the district court from declining to reapply the prior credit and affirmed the resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alston, 722 F.3d 603 (4th Cir. 2013) (vacatur and remand for de novo resentencing permits district court to reconfigure sentence)
- United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2012) (mandate rule bars relitigation of issues decided on appeal)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (a criminal sentence is a package of sanctions reflecting sentencing intent)
- United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (changed legal classification affecting Guidelines calculation)
- United States v. Parker, 762 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2014) (district court may reassess sentencing decisions on resentencing even if government did not appeal prior sentence)
- United States v. Hillary, 106 F.3d 1170 (4th Cir. 1997) (principles governing resentencing and appellate mandate)