United States v. West
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9924
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- West was indicted on four counts: felon in possession of a firearm, user of controlled substances, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and possession of methamphetamine.
- He pled guilty to felon-in-possession in exchange for dropping the other charges.
- District court sentenced him to 235 months, at the low end of 235–293 month Guideline range, and ordered restitution of $6,118.26 for damages during the evasion.
- On appeal from remand, West challenged whether the ACCA applied due to a prior failure-to-stop conviction and challenged the restitution award.
- On remand, the government conceded no two-level enhancement for a stolen weapon; district court resentenced to 180 months, and held it lacked power to revisit restitution though the remand did not explicitly limit that issue.
- The panel remanded to allow consideration of restitution and noted issues about law of the case from West I and the mandate rule; appellate counsel’s ineffective-assistance withdrawal was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether West's failure-to-stop conviction is a violent felony under the ACCA | West | West | West's conviction remains a violent felony under the ACCA. |
| Whether the restitution award on remand was proper under MVRA/Hughey | West | West | Remand authority allows reconsideration of restitution; original denial was error. |
| Scope of remand and mandate rule on resentencing | West | West | District court may expand resentencing scope absent explicit limits; restitution issue within scope. |
| Whether the district court’s failure to address disputed facts from West I affected sentencing | West | West | We reaffirm remand to resolve disputed facts; if proven not by preponderance, rerun sentencing excluding those facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. United States (West I), 550 F.3d 952 (10th Cir.2008) (upheld ACCA violent felony determination and remanded for factual findings on enhancements)
- Lang v. United States, 405 F.3d 1060 (10th Cir.2005) (law-of-the-case and remand scope considerations)
- Moore v. United States, 83 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir.1996) (mandate rule allows district court discretion on remand unless limited)
- Cereceres-Zavala v. United States, 499 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir.2007) (remand for explicit factual findings when Rule 32(i)(3)(B) issues arise)
- Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (1990) (MVRA restitution limited to losses caused by offense of conviction)
- Gordon v. United States, 480 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir.2007) (MVRA restitution causation standard and propriety)
- United States v. Wilfong, 551 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir.2008) (causation and restitution interpretation in MVRA context)
- United States v. Webb, 98 F.3d 585 (10th Cir.1996) (remand scope considerations in sentencing)
- United States v. Davis, 912 F.2d 1210 (10th Cir.1990) (waiver vs. de novo resentencing considerations)
- United States v. Harris, 899 F.2d 1207 (10th Cir.1990) (general remand principles)