U.S. v. Mobley

Defendant was entitled to second remand for new sentencing hearing, where Ct. of Appeals had remanded matter for new sentencing hearing after initially finding that Dist. Ct. had failed to provide sufficient rationale for imposing certain terms of supervised release, and where Dist. Ct. indicated during remand that it was limited to only addressing issues with respect to terms of defendant’s supervised release, after rejecting defendant’s attempt to argue and present evidence on issue of length of his prison sentence. Ct. made clear that remands to clarify rationale for imposing terms of supervised release are “full remands,” such that defendant would be free to reopen issues with respect to length of his term of incarceration, as well as terms of his supervised release. Here, remand was required because Dist. Ct. had failed to acknowledge that it had authority to hear new evidence on both issues.