F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
August 30, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 06-6339
v. W estern District of Oklahoma
TH O MA S B UR L C AIN , (D.C. No. CR-02-211-M )
Defendant-Appellant.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before BR ISC OE, EBEL, and M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Thomas Cain pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and
ammunition by an unlawful drug user. On November 3, 2004, the district court
entered his sentence as follow s:
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10 th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is
therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not
binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10 th Cir. R. 32.1.
The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United
States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of 120
months in accordance with the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The
Court finds that, if the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are later
found to be unconstitutional in their entirety, the defendant is
alternatively sentenced to 120 months, and further, if only the
upward enhancements of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are later
found to be unconstitutional, the defendant is alternatively
sentenced to a term of 30 months.
R. Doc. 143, at 2. After the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), M r. Cain filed a motion with the district court to
enforce the 30-month alternative sentence. The district court denied that motion
and ordered that the defendant be resentenced. The district court then resentenced
M r. Cain to 120 months incarceration. M r. Cain timely appealed that decision.
This Court held that the district court did not have jurisdiction to
resentence M r. Cain. The Court explained: “Because M r. Cain did not appeal
from the November 3 judgment imposing his 120-month guidelines sentence and
because none of the § 3582 conditions are present, the district court was divested
of all jurisdiction on November 16, 2004, when the time for appeal expired. The
district court therefore lacked jurisdiction to resentence defendant.” United States
v. Cain (Cain I), 191 Fed. Appx. 830, 834 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (citation
omitted). W e ordered the district court “to vacate its void amended judgment,”
allowing the original November 3, 2004 sentence to “stand as entered.” Id. at 835.
On remand, the district court followed our instructions precisely, vacating
its Order on October 25, 2006. M r. Cain now appeals the October 25, 2006
-2-
Order. He argues that the 30 month portion of the original alternative sentence
should be enforced.
W e lack jurisdiction on this appeal to entertain any challenge to M r. Cain’s
sentence. M r. Cain is incarcerated pursuant to the district court’s original
sentencing decision of November 3, 2004. The October 25, 2006 Order did not
disturb that sentence, which “stand[s] as entered.” Id. In Cain I, this Court
explicitly held that M r. Cain’s N ovember 3, 2004 sentence “was a final,
appealable sentence that was binding on M r. Cain” and that the “time for appeal
expired” on November 16, 2004. Id. at 834. M r. Cain failed to appeal the
sentence within the time period required by Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See United States v. Smith, 182 F.3d 733, 734 (10th Cir.
1999); United States v. Ceballos-M artinez, 358 F.3d 732, 733 (10th Cir. 2004).
W e do have jurisdiction to consider M r. Cain’s challenge to the Order of
October 25, 2006, which was the final order in the case on remand. But that order
did nothing more than carry out this Court’s remand instructions in Cain I to the
letter. If M r. Cain wished to challenge this Court’s decision in Cain I, he should
have filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. W e will
not allow an appeal from the district court’s order carrying out our instructions on
remand to serve as a back-door means of revisiting our prior decision.
-3-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the W estern District of
Oklahoma is AFFIRM ED.
Entered for the Court,
M ichael W . M cConnell
Circuit Judge
-4-