United States v. Timothy Daniels, 705 F. App'x 456

Defendant Timothy Daniels pleaded guilty to possession of a weapon in a federal court facility, criminal contempt, and obstruction of justice; district court sentenced him to 120 months (42 months above the Guidelines range).
This court previously vacated and remanded because the district court failed to state on the record reasons for the above-Guidelines sentence and did not clarify whether it was a departure or a variance.
On remand the district court interpreted the mandate narrowly and attempted only to pronounce the same sentencing reasons on the record without permitting new argument or full resentencing proceedings.
Daniels objected, arguing he should be allowed to present his side and that the court should conduct a full resentencing rather than merely restating prior reasons.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed the scope of the remand de novo, found the earlier mandate was not unmistakably limited, and concluded a de novo resentencing was required.
Daniels also requested reassignment to a different district judge; the court applied the Solomon/Sagan/Armco factors and declined reassignment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of remand — limited vs. general	Daniels: remand required the district court to allow presentation and full reconsideration	Government/District Court: remand only required announcing prior reasons on the record	Remand was not unmistakeably limited; de novo resentencing required
Requirement to state reasons on the record	Daniels: district court must state reasons in open court and allow him to respond	District court: comply by merely announcing prior reasons sufficed	Court reiterated open-court reasons are required and permitted full resentencing de novo
Reassignment to a different judge	Daniels: prior judge showed unwillingness to reconsider; reassignment needed to preserve fairness	Government/District Court: no evidence judge cannot put prior views aside; reassignment unnecessary	Reassignment denied; no showing judge unable to be impartial
Standard of review for remand scope	Daniels: (implicit) limited scope intended by panel mandate	Government: remand limited to remedying procedural defect	Court: reviews scope de novo; presumption for de novo consideration unless remand unmistakably limits it

United States v. Orlando, 363 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2004) (scope-of-remand reviewed de novo)
United States v. Campbell, 168 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 1999) (distinguishing limited vs. general remands; remand language must be unmistakable to limit scope)
United States v. Moore, 131 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 1997) (appellate courts’ discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 2106)
United States v. Obi, 542 F.3d 148 (6th Cir. 2008) (emphasizing unmistakable language required to limit remand)
Solomon v. United States, 467 F.3d 928 (6th Cir. 2006) (factors for reassignment on remand)
Sagan v. United States, 342 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2003) (reassignment factors and standards)
Armco, Inc. v. United Steelworkers, 280 F.3d 669 (6th Cir. 2002) (reassignment is extraordinary and should be rare)