US v. Ventura: The Fourth Circuit granted Ventura relief from one count of seven for which he had received convictions, and remanded his case to the district court for re-sentencing. Originally, he received a sentence of 420 months for his part in operating several brothels in Annapolis and Easton, Maryland, and in Portsmouth, Virginia. On re-sentencing, Ventura received a sentence of 420 months again. He appealed, arguing that the district court violated the mandate rule, arguing that the district court acted vindictively in sentencing him a second time to 420 months, even though one of his convictions had been overturned. Third, he argued the new sentence was unreasonable because the court considered facts related to the count that had been vacated as well as some of his conduct while he was incarcerated with the BOP. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.
In its analysis, the Fourth Circuit determined that the mandate rule was not violated because the lower court was permitted to consider the issue de novo and it could entertain any relevant evidence on that issue that it could have heard at the first hearing. Additionally, pursuant to the Sentencing Package Doctrine, when a court of appeals vacates and remands a case for re-sentencing, the original sentence becomes void in its entirety and the district court is free to revisit any rulings from the initial sentencing. The Fourth Circuit found that the sentencing package doctrine controlled the result in this case. Moreover, the Fourth Circuit determined that its remand did not automatically entitle Ventura a 60-month reduction merely because his count seven conviction had been vacated; rather, the mandate left plenty of room for the district court to recalculate the sentences for the other six convictions that were not vacated. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court did not exceed the mandate in the First Decision (appeal).
Regarding the vindictiveness challenge, the Fourth Circuit held that Ventura’s challenge failed because he did not receive an increase in his aggregate sentence upon re-sentencing; the district court imposed the same term. Under the “aggregate package” approach, courts compare the total original sentence to the total sentence after re-sentencing. If the new sentence is greater than the original sentence, the new sentence is considered more severe. Since Ventura received the same sentence, 420 months in prison, his attempt to establish a presumption of vindictiveness fails.
Finally, Ventura’s reasonableness challenges fail because the district court was permitted to consider Ventura’s violent conduct and alleged possession of firearms in crafting his sentence, and secondly, the factual underpinnings of the vacated count against Ventura were nonetheless proved by a preponderance of the evidence and could be considered in connection with Ventura’s re-sentencing. With regard to Ventura’s conduct while in BOP custody, the Fourth Circuit held that a re-sentencing court could account for and decrease a sentence based on a defendant’s rehabilitation, or, by the same token, potential misdeeds.