concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc:
Although this case presented “the question whether a district court can disregard the spirit and express instructions of an appellate court’s mandate to reconsider an unreasonable sentence,” United States v. Paul, 561 F.3d 970, 972 (9th Cir.2009), the briefs of the parties filed in response to the Court’s order of June 22, 2009 focused on whether Paul’s new 15-month sentence was substantively unreasonable. The en banc call failed. We stand by what we said in the opinion, whether or not it was “one of our court’s most elegant,” and leave to others whether it was “a masterpiece of craftsmanship.” (O’Scannlain Dissenting Op. at 14041).