United States v. William Tisdale, Jr.
678 F. App'x 246
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellants (Frazier, Tisdale, Jones, Beacham) participated in a mortgage-fraud scheme involving multiple real-estate transactions; convictions and restitution orders were imposed.
- On initial appeals, this Court found the district court erred by using original loan amounts for restitution without accounting for whether mortgages were resold on the secondary market.
- Frazier I vacated and remanded Frazier’s restitution for failure to consider resale on the secondary market.
- Beacham (and co-appellants) affirmed convictions but vacated sentences because the district court abused its discretion by including original loan amounts for mortgages later resold; remanded for resentencing.
- On remand, the district court interpreted the mandates narrowly, excluded the value of mortgages sold on the secondary market from restitution calculations, and reimposed prior imprisonment terms for some defendants.
- This appeal challenges the district court’s interpretation of the remand mandates and the resulting restitution orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of remand: whether district court could limit resentencing to secondary-market mortgages | Appellants: remand entitled them to broader reconsideration of restitution; district court should have addressed other objections | Government/district court: remand focused narrowly on exclusion of resold mortgages; district court should follow mandate restrictively | Court: remand was narrow; district court correctly limited resentencing to mortgages sold on the secondary market |
| Restitution calculation: whether excluding resold mortgages was required | Appellants: district court erred or abused discretion by its restitution rulings on remand | Government/district court: complied with this Court’s prior holdings by excluding resold mortgages | Court: district court complied with mandate and properly excluded value of resold mortgages from restitution |
| Whether district court exceeded mandate by not addressing unrelated objections | Appellants: district court should have considered other restitution objections on remand | District court: bound by this Court’s restrictive mandate rule; may consider only directed issues | Court: district court lawfully limited consideration to the issue directed on remand |
| Effect on sentences (imprisonment) | Appellants: earlier remand vacated sentences; could affect term if restitution influenced sentence | Government: district court reimposed original imprisonment terms and appellees do not appeal those terms | Court: affirmed restitution orders; reimposition of imprisonment terms was not challenged here |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pineiro, 470 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 2006) (on restrictive interpretation of remand in criminal resentencing)
- United States v. Marmolejo, 139 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 1998) (district court on remand may consider only what the appellate mandate directs)
- United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652 (5th Cir. 2002) (mandate-rule analysis and restrictive approach to remand scope)
- United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2004) (de novo review of district court’s interpretation of a remand)
- United States v. Beacham, 774 F.3d 267 (5th Cir. 2014) (vacating sentences where restitution improperly used original loan amounts for mortgages resold on secondary market)