United States v. Jarvis Pierre
In United States v. Pierre, No. 23-30645 (5th Cir. Oct. 10, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s 348-month prison sentence for multiple drug and gun offenses. In a prior appeal, the court had vacated Pierre’s sentence because the district court had improperly deemed him an “armed career criminal.” United States v. Pierre (Pierre I), No. 22-30086, 2023 WL 2586314 (5th Cir. Mar. 21, 2023). But on remand, the district court imposed the same sentence.
Background: At the original sentencing, the district court had “identified Pierre as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e),” and it applied a Guidelines imprisonment range of 262 to 327 months (plus a consecutive 60 months for his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)). The court imposed a sentence of 288 months, plus 60 consecutive months.
Later, upon remand, the “armed career criminal” finding no longer applied, so two of Pierre’s convictions now had 10-year statutory maximums. However, the Probation Office issued a new PSR that increased his Guidelines range to 360 months to life in prison — based on a finding that he was a “career offender” under USSG § 4B1.1(a). Ultimately, the court imposed the same sentence: 348 months. This time, it accomplished that by imposing consecutive sentences of 120 months, 120 months, and 108 months.
Issue 1: Did the district court exceed the Fifth Circuit’s mandate by resentencing Pierre on the gun count (which had previously received a 60-month sentence)? No. “[T]he mandate rule does not categorically prohibit a district court from resentencing on all counts when the appellate court only vacated the sentences of particular counts.”
In the first appeal, the Fifth Circuit’s final words “simply vacated the entire sentence and remanded for resentencing.” It had written: “Pierre’s convictions are AFFIRMED, the sentence is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for resentencing.” That language was broad enough to permit a full resentencing. Additionally, “the decision to increase the original sentence for Count 3 did not require that the court revisit the merits of a legal issue that Pierre already appealed.”
Issue 2: Did the district court violate the “aggregate-sentence rule” by resentencing Pierre on the gun count? No. Pierre “provide[d] no caselaw for the notion that the aggregate-sentence rule is a standalone doctrine that prohibits a district court from revisiting all counts when such resentencing is otherwise permissible under the mandate.” Moreover, “the removal of the armed career criminal enhancement and vacatur of Counts 1 and 2 required a new Guidelines calculation,” which “imposed a new career offender enhancement and suggested that the enhanced sentence be allocated across all three counts.”
Final Note: Pierre also raised a foreclosed argument that inchoate offenses cannot be “controlled substance offenses” for purposes of the career-offender Guideline, but the Fifth Circuit previously rejected that argument. United States v. Vargas, 74 F.4th 673 (5th Cir. 2023) (en banc).