Fifth Circuit· 11/9/2006

United States v. Pineiro

Citations

470 F.3d 200
2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27880
2006 WL 3234353

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that Government preserved its mandate-rule error for review and thus plain error review did not apply
holding that without explicit m andate, a district court’s authority on remand for re-sentencing did not include authority to recalculate applicable advisory Guidelines range
concluding that the government preserved its objection to recalculating the defendant’s sentence by making state- ments throughout the sentencing hearing arguing that the prior calculations were still appropriate
advising that issues not raised before appeals court are not proper for reconsideration in district court below
applying a similar test, but permitting deviation from a mandate where evidence to be offered at “a subsequent trial” is “substantially different”
Law of the case “prohibits a district court on remand from reexamining an issue of law or fact previously decided on appeal and not resubmitted to the trial court on remand.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: King, Wiener, Clement

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

39 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Pineiro

5 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.