United States v. Walker, 918 F.3d 1134

John Walker pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery; originally sentenced to 33 days (time served) + 3 years supervised release. Government appealed.
This court in United States v. Walker (Walker I) reversed as substantively unreasonable, holding a 33‑day time‑served sentence gave insufficient weight to § 3553(a) factors and remanded for resentencing consistent with the opinion.
On remand the district court held evidentiary hearings, received extensive new evidence of Walker’s post‑sentencing rehabilitation (sobriety, stable employment, family support) and probation officer testimony recommending no custody.
The district court imposed a harsher noncustodial sentence: 10 years probation, 2 years home confinement, and 500 hours community service, and explained its § 3553(a) analysis in a 61‑page opinion.
The government appealed, arguing (1) the district court violated Walker I’s mandate by declining to impose imprisonment, and (2) the new sentence remained substantively unreasonable; it also sought reassignment on remand if reversed.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed: Walker I’s mandate was a general remand and did not specifically require imprisonment; the government’s substantive‑reasonableness challenge was waived for inadequate briefing, so the court did not reach its merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court violated the appellate mandate by not imposing imprisonment on remand	The government: Walker I established the 33‑day sentence was unreasonably short and limited district discretion such that some prison time was required	Walker: Walker I issued a general remand; district court could consider new evidence and fashion a noncustodial but harsher sentence	Court: Walker I was a general remand; mandate did not specifically cabined district discretion to require imprisonment, so no violation
Whether the post‑remand sentence is substantively unreasonable under § 3553(a)	Government: even on remand, a no‑prison sentence is substantively unreasonable given offender’s history and Guidelines range	Walker: district court’s extensive findings and new evidence support the noncustodial sentence	Court: Government waived this argument by inadequate, perfunctory briefing; court declined to reach the merits
Whether the case should be reassigned to a different district judge if resentenced	Government requested reassignment if reversal/remand occurred	Walker opposed reassignment	Court: Request for reassignment rendered moot by affirmation; denied as moot

United States v. Walker, 844 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2017) (prior panel reversed 33‑day time‑served sentence as substantively unreasonable and remanded)
United States v. West, 646 F.3d 745 (10th Cir. 2011) (mandate‑rule principles; scope of remand and district discretion)
Briggs v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 334 U.S. 304 (1948) (appellate mandate binds inferior courts)
United States v. Webb, 49 F.3d 636 (10th Cir. 1995) (remand that expressly directs sentencing within a specific range limits district discretion)
Dish Network Corp. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 772 F.3d 856 (10th Cir. 2014) (presumption in favor of a general remand absent specific limiting language)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district court’s broad discretion in sentencing and consideration of post‑sentencing rehabilitation)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (§ 3553(a) factors guide sentencing; multiple sentencing aims to be weighed)