Should this Court resolve the conflict among the circuits concerning whether the remand rule should be interpreted restrictively, as held by three circuits, including the Fifth Circuit, or whether the de novo approach to resentencing on remand should apply, as held by five circuits, so that the same rule will apply to all federal criminal defendants who obtain a remand for resentencing?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The Fifth Circuit, and two other circuits, have interpreted the mandate tule in a “restrictive” or “waiver” approach, meaning that when a case is remanded from the appellate court to the district court for resentencing, only the issues raised in the appeal may be determined on remand. However, five other circuits have held that there is a de novo approach to resentencing on remand, which is not restricted to what was raised in the appeal that resulted in the remand. Petitioner’s first appeal only argued that the district court erred in failing to permit him to allocute, and did not discuss any other sentencing errors, and the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded so that Petitioner could allocute. As a result, Petitioner could not argue at resentencing that the district court erred in imposing a two level enhancement for possession of a firearm, or whether he should receive safety valve relief. If Petitioner had been sentenced in a circuit that follows the de novo approach to resentencing on remand, he could have had these arguments decided on remand. Should this Court resolve the conflict among the circuits concerning whether the remand rule should be interpreted restrictively, as held by three circuits, including the Fifth Circuit, or whether the de novo approach to resentencing on remand should apply, as held by five circuits, so that the same rule will apply to all federal criminal defendants who obtain a remand for resentencing? 1