United States v. Timothy Durham, 630 F. App'x 634

Timothy Durham, with co-conspirators, ran a Ponzi scheme causing over $200 million in losses to thousands of victims and was convicted on multiple counts (conspiracy, securities fraud, wire fraud).
On initial appeal (Durham I), this Court affirmed convictions and sentences except vacating two of Durham’s ten counts and remanded for resentencing without those counts.
On remand Durham sought to reopen the district court’s loss-amount calculation under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1, which Durham I had expressly reviewed and affirmed.
The district court declined to revisit the loss determination as foreclosed by the mandate and law-of-the-case, recalculated the Guidelines (unchanged, offense level 47), and reimposed the same 50-year sentence after §3553(a) consideration.
Durham raised additional arguments on resentencing (recalculating intended loss under a recent guideline clarification; Fifth and Sixth Amendment challenge to judge-found facts). The district court rejected reopening the loss ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court could reopen loss-amount on remand	Government: Remand limited to correcting the vacated counts only; prior loss finding stands	Durham: Remand permits reconsideration of loss amount	Court: Law-of-the-case and mandate rule bar reopening; prior loss determination is conclusive
Whether recent guideline clarification on intended loss requires resentencing	Govt: Actual loss > $200M independently supports original calculation	Durham: Clarification changes intended-loss calculation and affects offense level	Court: Unnecessary — actual loss affirmed earlier is sufficient, no resentencing required
Whether judge-found facts at sentencing violate Fifth and Sixth Amendments	Govt: Issue waived because not raised in prior appeal	Durham: Sentence based on judge-found facts infringes jury/trial rights	Court: Claim waived for failure to raise in Durham I; not considered on remand
Whether remand limited to correcting discrete error only	Govt: Remand for limited correction per precedent (Barnes, Parker)	Durham: More expansive resentencing review warranted	Court: Remand limits apply; district court appropriately limited to discrete correction

United States v. Durham, 766 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2014) (prior appeal affirming loss calculation and vacating two counts)
United States v. Barnes, 660 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2011) (remand limited to correcting discrete errors)
United States v. Parker, 101 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 1996) (same rule on remand limitations)
United States v. Adams, 746 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2014) (law-of-the-case doctrine bars reconsideration of issues decided by higher court)

AFFIRMED.