United States v. Shipp, 644 F.3d 1126

Shipp was convicted of possessing a firearm after a felony conviction and was classified as an armed career criminal (ACCA) based on three predicate offenses.
His predicates included 1984 assault with a dangerous weapon, 1984 marijuana distribution, and a 1987 escape for failure to report to a penal institution.
On direct appeal, the court affirmed his conviction and sentence.
Shipp filed a pro se §2255 motion challenging reliance on the escape conviction after Chambers v. United States (2009) redefined “violent felony” under the ACCA.
This court remanded to correct the sentence in light of Chambers by resentencing without the ACCA classification.
On remand, the district court, interpreting the mandate, substituted a 1969 burglary as a predicate to sustain the ACCA rather than relying on the escape conviction, and resentenced Shipp.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court complied with the mandate rule on remand	Shipp argues the mandate foreclosed any ACCA classification	Government argues mandate foreclosed only reliance on escape, not other predicates	No error; district court properly construed the mandate and could rely on another predicate.

United States v. Keifer, 198 F.3d 798 (10th Cir.1999) (mandate guides de novo resentencing; may limit discretion)
Mason v. Texaco, 948 F.2d 1546 (10th Cir.1991) (interpret mandate in light of appellate opinion)
United States v. Carales-Villalta, 617 F.3d 342 (5th Cir.2010) (mandate interpretation across circuits)
In re Abel, 932 F.2d 898 (10th Cir.1991) (district court may consult the opinion to ascertain mandate intent)
Cherokee Nation v. Oklahoma, 461 F.2d 674 (10th Cir.1972) (intent of mandate construed from the opinion)
Bankers Trust Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 761 F.2d 943 (3d Cir.1985) (letter and spirit of the mandate)
United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64 (4th Cir.1993) (mandate interpretation under federal appellate practice)
United States v. Bell, 988 F.2d 247 (1st Cir.1993) (same)