United States v. Rodriguez

Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
March 25, 2010

No. 09-20181 Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee
v.

DAVID RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:
David Rodriguez challenges a greater sentence imposed on remand by a
different judge from the one who imposed his first sentence. Previously, based
on the Government’s breach of his plea agreement, Rodriguez successfully
appealed his first sentence. In remanding for resentencing, our court ordered
it to be conducted by a different judge because of that breach. United States v.
Rodriguez, 306 F. App’x 135 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).
Primarily, Rodriguez claims his new sentence was vindictive. For this
point, the principal issue is whether United States v. Floyd, 519 F.2d 1031 (5th
Cir. 1975), has been overruled by Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134 (1986). In
the alternative, he claims the advisory guidelines sentencing range used in
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

imposing his sentence was not supported by the requisite preponderance of the
evidence. Although plain-error review applies to each issue, there was no error.
AFFIRMED.
I.
Rodriguez, a former Houston police officer, operated a private security
company in Houston, Texas, where he employed several illegal aliens as armed
security guards. Rodriguez directed them to apply for commissions to carry
firearms, which required submission of false information. He also purchased
firearms and transferred them to those employees.
In June 2006, Rodriguez was indicted for conspiracy, making false
statements in the acquisition of firearms, selling firearms to prohibited persons,
and selling firearms without a license. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 922, 924. He
pleaded guilty to conspiracy, in exchange for the Government’s promise to
dismiss the other counts and not to seek any offense-level increases at
sentencing.
The presentence investigation report (PSR) recommended: a base offense
level of 18 because the offense involved at least 39 firearms; a four-level
aggravating-role increase for Rodriguez’ being a leader or organizer; and, a two-
level increase for obstruction of justice. Rodriguez’ advisory guidelines
sentencing range would have been 51 to 63 months, but the statutory maximum
was 60 months, see 18 U.S.C. § 371; therefore, the range was 51 to 60 months.
Rodriguez filed sealed objections to the PSR’s recommended offense-level
increases. At sentencing, the Government’s responses to those objections
defended the PSR’s recommended sentencing range. This arguably breached the
Government’s plea-agreement promise not to seek any offense-level increases.
After considering the parties’ contentions, the district judge rejected some
parts of the PSR and ruled: the offense involved 23, rather than the
recommended 39, firearms, reducing the recommended base offense level by two;

2
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

and a three-level aggravating-role enhancement, instead of the recommended
four levels, along with the recommended two-level obstruction-of-justice
enhancement, should be imposed. This resulted in an advisory guidelines
sentencing range of 37 to 46 months. Rodriguez was sentenced to, inter alia, 37
months’ imprisonment.
Rodriguez appealed his conviction and sentence. Among other things, he
claimed the Government had breached its plea agreement by urging
enhancements at sentencing; the Government conceded it had “arguably” done
so. Rodriguez, 306 F. App’x at 138. Our court affirmed the conviction; but, in
the light of the Government’s concession, it vacated Rodriguez’ sentence and
remanded for resentencing. Id. at 138-39.
In doing so, our court ruled that, because of the plea-agreement breach, a
different judge would preside at resentencing:
The government . . . conced[es] . . . that Rodriguez is
entitled to be resentenced before a different district
judge. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257,
262-63 (1971) (providing for remedy of resentencing
before a different district judge); United States v.
Saling, 205 F.3d 764, 768 (5th Cir. 2000) (same). In
light of this concession, we grant the agreed-upon relief
by vacating Rodriguez’s sentence and remanding for
resentencing before a different district judge. In so
doing, we note that this vacatur is caused not by any
error on the part of the district judge, but rather by the
government’s error. Id.

306 F. App’x at 138-39 (footnotes omitted). Our court also stated: “[R]emand to
a different judge is not a reflection upon the original judge”. Id. at 138 n.3
(citing Santabello, 404 U.S. at 263).
At resentencing, Rodriguez renewed his prior objections to the PSR; they
were denied. Based upon his independent analysis, the second judge ruled,
contrary to the original judge’s ruling, that Rodriguez was responsible for 27

3
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

firearms (instead of 23). The second judge also ruled, as had the first, that
Rodriguez should receive a three-level aggravating-role enhancement (again,
instead of the PSR-recommended four levels) and a two-level obstruction-of-
justice enhancement. The resulting advisory guidelines sentencing range was
46 to 57 months. Rodriguez was sentenced to, inter alia, 46 months’
imprisonment—nine months more than his original sentence.
II.
Rodriguez claims: his sentence on remand was vindictive (either
presumed or actual vindictiveness); and, in the alternative, the advisory
guidelines sentencing range used for imposing his sentence was not supported
by the requisite preponderance of the evidence. For those two claims, this
appeal presents several instances in which we must decide whether to exercise
our discretion to review an issue. In that regard, plain-error review will be
applied to the two claims. (In his opening brief, Rodriguez also claimed he was
not credited for time served; at oral argument, his counsel conceded that issue
is moot.)
A.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process, which
obviously includes the right to be tried and sentenced absent prosecutorial or
judicial vindictiveness. See, e.g., Thigpen v. Roberts, 468 U.S. 27, 30 (1984)
(citing Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 27 (1974)) (prosecutorial vindictiveness);
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 723-24 (1969) (judicial vindictiveness),
overruled in part by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (1989). Of course, because
Rodriguez was convicted of a federal crime, only the Fifth Amendment is in play.
Rodriguez claims the second judge’s sentence violates his right against
vindictiveness.

4
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

1.
Before reaching the vindictiveness claim, we must determine our standard
of review for it. In contending the claim is unreviewable, the Government
asserts Rodriguez’ counsel either waived or invited this claimed error at
resentencing.
a.
Waived errors are unreviewable. E.g., United States v. Arviso-Mata, 442
F.3d 382, 384 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Musquiz, 45 F.3d 927,
931-32 (5th Cir. 1995)). Review of invited errors is almost similarly precluded;
such errors are reviewed only for “manifest injustice”. United States v. Green,
272 F.3d 748, 754 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Pankhurst, 118 F.3d
345, 359 (5th Cir. 1997)). Forfeited errors are reviewed under the least strict
standard for these three types of error: plain error, as discussed infra. E.g.,
Arviso-Mata, 442 F.3d at 384 (citing United States v. Gracia-Cantu, 302 F.3d
308, 310 (5th Cir. 2002)).
“Forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right; waiver is
the intentional relinquishment of a known right.” Id. (citing United States v.
Reveles, 190 F.3d 678, 683 (5th Cir. 1999)). In other words, for waiver,
Rodriguez’ “counsel [must have known] of the . . . issue and . . . consciously
chose[n] to forego it”. Id. For the invited-error doctrine to apply, defendant (or
his counsel) must have induced the error. Green, 272 F.3d at 754.
At resentencing, after sentence was imposed, Rodriguez stated he was
confused about that greater sentence. In doing so, he questioned how, in the
light of the Government’s plea-agreement breach at the first sentencing, he could
now receive a greater sentence. In responding, the court explained to Rodriguez
the process it had followed; and, after stating it was within the scope of our
court’s remand mandate as the district court understood it, the court asked
Rodriguez’ counsel if he had “any argument on the mandate”. Counsel replied:

5
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

Judge, he was ordered a re-sentencing. And from the
looks of it, you have done, you have went through that
file extensively. We reurged [prior counsel’s] objections,
which were extensive; and you have just summed up
exactly what you just did.
The Government maintains counsel’s reply constitutes waiver or invited
error. But, that reply, made after imposition of sentence, does not show counsel
knew of the potential vindictiveness issue and chose intentionally to relinquish
it (waiver). And, certainly, sentence having already been imposed, the reply did
not induce the claimed error (invited error). Accordingly, the claimed error is
reviewable.
b.
Nevertheless, because Rodriguez failed to object in district court on the
basis of vindictiveness (forfeited error), review is only for plain error. E.g.,
United States v. Scott, 48 F.3d 1389, 1398 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing United States
v. Vontsteen, 950 F.2d 1086, 1089 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc)). (The Government
states, and in his reply brief Rodriguez acknowledges, that such forfeited error
results in plain-error review. Of course, we, not the parties, determine our
standard of review. E.g., Vontsteen, 950 F.2d at 1091 (“But no party has the
power to control our standard of review. A reviewing court may reject both
parties’ approach to the standard.” (emphasis in original)).)
To establish reversible plain error, Rodriguez must show: an error was
committed; it was clear or obvious; and, it affected his substantial rights. E.g.,
United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 332 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing United States
v. Thompson, 454 F.3d 459, 464 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 962
(2009)). Even if reversible plain error is established, we retain discretion
whether to correct it and, generally, will do so only if it seriously affects the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

6
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

2.
In support of his vindictiveness claim, Rodriguez contends: pursuant to
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969), a presumption of vindictiveness
applies to his sentence; or, alternatively, there was actual vindictiveness. For
the reasons that follow, there was no error. Accordingly, that ends our plain-
error review.
a.
Pearce held a presumption of vindictiveness arises when, after a new trial,
a judge sentences a defendant to a harsher sentence. Id. at 723-24; see also
United States v. Resendez-Mendez, 251 F.3d 514, 517 n.6 (5th Cir. 2001)
(applying Pearce rule to resentencing context, where new sentence imposed by
judge who imposed original sentence (citing United States v. Campbell, 106 F.3d
64, 67 (5th Cir. 1997))). At issue here is whether that presumption applies when
a different judge of the same court imposes the new sentence.
In his opening and reply briefs here, Rodriguez asserted this issue is
controlled by United States v. Floyd, 519 F.2d 1031 (5th Cir. 1975), which held
the presumption applies in this situation. The Government countered that, in
the light of Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134 (1986), Floyd is no longer good
law. At oral argument, Rodriguez’ counsel conceded McCullough controls, but
urged our criticizing McCullough as having strayed from the principles
announced in Pearce.
Of course, counsel’s request that we criticize McCullough is rejected;
similarly, we do not rely on counsel’s concession that Floyd has been overruled.
Because our court has never rendered that holding, we must instead undertake
an independent analysis to determine Floyd’s validity vel non.
As is well known, “a panel of this court can only overrule a prior panel
decision if [, inter alia,] ‘such overruling is unequivocally directed by controlling
Supreme Court precedent’”. Martin v. Medtronic, Inc., 254 F.3d 573, 577 (5th

7
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Zuniga-Salinas, 945 F.2d 1302, 1306 (5th
Cir. 1991)). Therefore, at issue is whether McCullough “explicitly or implicitly
overrul[ed]” Floyd. United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999).
For that analysis, a review of the Supreme Court’s extensive judicial-
vindictiveness jurisprudence is required. The seminal case is North Carolina v.
Pearce, rendered in 1969. There, the Court considered two consolidated cases.
See 395 U.S. at 713.
In the first, defendant was convicted and sentenced by the trial judge. Id.
He successfully challenged his conviction in a state post-conviction proceeding
and was retried, convicted, and given a greater sentence by the trial judge. Id.
(Of great importance to our analysis, and although it was not mentioned in
Pearce, it was noted 17 years later in Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134, 140
n.3, is that this first case in Pearce “apparently involved different judges
presiding over the two trials”. As discussed infra, there being two judges in this
first case in Pearce was a basis for this court’s decision in Floyd in 1975, which
predated McCullough (1986). Floyd also involved two judges, and the below-
described presumption of vindictiveness adopted in Pearce was imposed in
Floyd.)
In the second case considered in Pearce, defendant pleaded guilty and was
sentenced. Id. at 714. His plea and sentence were set aside in a state post-
conviction proceeding; he was tried, convicted, and given a greater sentence (the
Pearce Court did not specify whether the judge who accepted the guilty plea was
the judge who subsequently tried and resentenced this defendant). Id.
Both defendants pursued federal habeas relief, challenging their greater
sentences. Id. at 713-14. The Supreme Court rejected claims that either “the
double jeopardy provision [or] the Equal Protection Clause imposes an absolute
bar to a more severe sentence upon reconviction”. Id. at 723. On the other hand,
it was obvious to the Court that due process of law forbids imposition of “a

8
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

heavier sentence upon every reconvicted defendant for the explicit purpose of
punishing the defendant for his having succeeded in getting his original
conviction set aside”. Id. at 723-24.
The Court went further, however, and held: not only does actual
vindictiveness violate due process, but also, the “apprehension of such a
retaliatory motivation on the part of the sentencing judge” does so as well,
because “the fear of such vindictiveness may unconstitutionally deter”
defendants from exercising any rights to appeal and collateral attack. Id. at 725.
Therefore, the Court adopted a prophylactic rule, holding a presumption of
vindictiveness applies when defendant receives a greater sentence after a new
trial, unless: the sentencing court affirmatively states objective reasons for that
sentence; and, those reasons are based upon “information concerning identifiable
conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original
sentencing proceeding”. Id. at 726.
A few years after Pearce was rendered in 1969, the Supreme Court
narrowed the application of this broad presumption of vindictiveness. Colten v.
Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972), considered whether the presumption should
apply in the context of Kentucky’s two-tier criminal court system: inferior
courts of limited jurisdiction, which adjudicated misdemeanors; and those of
general criminal jurisdiction. Id. at 112. Kentucky law provided that, if
defendant elected to do so, he could obtain a trial de novo in the latter after
conviction in the former. Id. Defendant in Colten was sentenced to a fine in the
inferior court; he elected to have a trial de novo in the general-jurisdiction court
and received a greater fine. Id. at 108. He claimed, inter alia, his sentence
should be presumed vindictive. Id.
The Court disagreed. It “not[ed] first the obvious”: the general-
jurisdiction court was a different court than the inferior court—“not the court
with whose work [defendant] was sufficiently dissatisfied to seek a different

9
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

result on appeal; and . . . not the court that is asked to do over what it thought
it had already done correctly”. Id. at 116-17. Moreover, the general-jurisdiction
court was not “even asked to find error in another court’s work”. Id. at 117. The
Court also noted:
It may often be that the superior court will impose a
punishment more severe than that received from the
inferior court. But it no more follows that such a
sentence is a vindictive penalty for seeking a superior
court trial than that the inferior court imposed a
lenient penalty. The trial de novo represents a
completely fresh determination of guilt or innocence.
Id.
Under those circumstances,“[t]he possibility of vindictiveness, found to
exist in Pearce, [was] not inherent in the Kentucky two-tier system”. Id. at 116
(emphasis added). Therefore, the Pearce prophylactic rule was not required. Id.
at 118-19.
Not long after, in Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17 (1973), the
presumption’s reach was restricted further. Chaffin addressed a circuit split:
whether the vindictiveness presumption applied when, following successful
appeal or collateral attack, a jury, rather than a judge, imposed a greater
sentence after retrial. See id. at 21. In Chaffin, defendant was convicted and
sentenced by a jury; his conviction was affirmed. Id. at 18-19. He received
federal habeas relief (retrial). Id. at 19. On retrial before a new judge and jury,
defendant received a greater sentence from the jury. Id. Defendant appealed
unsuccessfully and then again sought federal habeas relief, claiming his
sentence should be presumed vindictive. Id. at 20.
The Court reasoned that the presumption exists to protect against the
possibility of vindictiveness; therefore, the circumstances of resentencing must
be examined to determine whether they carry such an inherent threat. Id. at 26-
27. If not, there was no reason to apply the presumption. Id.

10
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

The Court held sentencing by a jury does not carry such a threat of
vindictiveness. It reasoned a jury would not (should not) know of the prior
sentence; would have no institutional interest in discouraging meritless appeals;
and was not the “same judicial authority whose handling of the prior trial was
sufficiently unacceptable to have required a reversal of the conviction. Thus, the
jury, unlike the judge who has been reversed, will have no personal stake in the
prior conviction and no motivation to engage in self-vindication”. Id. at 27.
Over the next 11 years, the Court considered prosecutorial vindictiveness
several times. See Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974); Bordenkircher v.
Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978); United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982);
Thigpen v. Roberts, 468 U.S. 27 (1984) . In Bordenkircher, 434 U.S. at 363, the
Court summarized its vindictiveness precedents through its first prosecutorial-
vindictiveness decision in Blackledge v. Perry:
The Court has emphasized that the due process
violation in cases such as Pearce and Perry lay not in
the possibility that a defendant might be deterred from
the exercise of a legal right, see Colten v. Kentucky, 407
U.S. 104; Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17, but
rather in the danger that the State might be retaliating
against the accused for lawfully attacking his
conviction. See Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. at 26-28.
Goodwin explained further the reason for the presumption:
Both Pearce and Blackledge involved the defendant’s
exercise of a procedural right that caused a complete
retrial after he had been once tried and convicted. The
decisions in these cases reflect a recognition by the
Court of the institutional bias inherent in the judicial
system against the retrial of issues that have already
been decided. The doctrines of stare decisis, res
judicata, the law of the case, and double jeopardy are
all based, at least in part, on that deep-seated bias.
While none of these doctrines barred the retrials in
Pearce and Blackledge, the same institutional pressure
that supports them might also subconsciously motivate

11
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

a vindictive prosecutorial or judicial response to a
defendant’s exercise of his right to obtain a retrial of a
decided question.
457 U.S. at 376-77 (emphasis added).
In these prosecutorial-vindictiveness decisions, the Court articulated the
reasonable-likelihood-of-vindictiveness standard in play here. For example, 16
months before our court’s 1975 decision in Floyd, the Court stated in Blackledge:
“The lesson that emerges from Pearce, Colten, and Chaffin is that the Due
Process Clause is not offended by all possibilities of increased punishment upon
retrial after appeal, but only by those that pose a realistic likelihood of
‘vindictiveness’”. 417 U.S. at 27 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Goodwin, the
Court stated: “Given the severity of such a presumption [of vindictiveness,] . . .
the Court has [imposed it] only in cases in which a reasonable likelihood of
vindictiveness exists”. 457 U.S. at 373 (emphasis added). And, in Goodwin, the
Court reaffirmed its earlier statement of the law from Blackledge: “As
Blackledge makes clear, ‘the Due Process Clause is not offended by all
possibilities of increased punishment . . . but only by those that pose a realistic
likelihood of vindictiveness’”. 457 U.S. at 384 (quoting Blackledge, 417 U.S. at
27) (omission in Goodwin) (emphasis added).
Following the 1973 decision in Chaffin, judicial vindictiveness was not
addressed again until Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134 (1986). As noted, we
must decide whether McCullough overruled our court’s 1975 decision in Floyd,
discussed infra.
McCullough addressed whether the Pearce presumption applied where:
a jury imposed the initial sentence; because of prosecutorial misconduct,
however, the trial judge granted a new trial; upon retrial before the same judge,
defendant asked that the judge, rather than the jury, impose sentence; and that
judge imposed a greater sentence than had the jury for the first trial. 475 U.S.

12
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 13 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

at 136. The judge, on defendant’s motion, made findings of fact on why her
sentence was greater. Id.
Noting that “vindictiveness of a sentencing judge is the evil the Court [in
Pearce] sought to prevent rather than simply enlarged sentences after a new
trial”, id. at 138, McCullough held the presumption inapplicable for the following
three reasons. First, the trial judge had ordered the new trial; therefore, she
“had ‘no motivation to engage in self-vindication’”, because she had not been
reversed. Id. at 139 (quoting Chaffin, 412 U.S. at 27). Second, it was unlikely
that the greater sentence arose from a desire to dissuade defendants from
requesting new trials. Id. And, third, “different sentencers assessed the varying
sentences”. Id. at 140.
For this third reason, the Court looked to the two-tier system in Colten, for
which the presumption of vindictiveness had been held not applicable. As
further support, it noted: “Here [in McCullough], the second sentencer
provide[d] an on-the-record, wholly logical, nonvindictive reason for the
sentence. We read Pearce to require no more[,] particularly since trial judges
must be accorded broad discretion in sentencing”. Id. (citing Wasman v. United
States, 468 U.S. 559, 563-64 (1984)).
Moreover, regarding this third reason (different sentencers), the Court
clarified a point that “ha[d] led some courts to conclude by implication that the
presumption of vindictiveness applies even where different sentencing judges are
involved”. Id. at 140 n.3. The Court stated that such conclusion (which was also
reached earlier in Floyd, discussed infra) had resulted from the fact that, as
noted supra, the first case in Pearce “apparently involved different judges
presiding over the two trials”. Id. The Court noted the Pearce opinion had not
addressed that point; accordingly, McCullough “decline[d] to read Pearce as
governing this issue”. Id.

13
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 14 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

The Court last addressed judicial vindictiveness in Alabama v. Smith, 490
U.S. 794 (1989). There, after pleading guilty, defendant was sentenced. Id. at
795-96. He appealed and was granted a trial. Id. at 796. That trial was before
the judge who had accepted the earlier guilty plea. Id.
At trial, the victim gave graphic testimony. Id. Defendant was convicted,
and the judge imposed a greater sentence. Id. The judge explained that his
doing so was based on evidence at trial of which he had been unaware when
imposing the first sentence (pursuant to the guilty plea). Id. at 796-97.
Defendant appealed, contending his sentence was due the Pearce
vindictiveness presumption. Id. at 797. The state supreme court agreed. Id.
The Supreme Court granted review “[b]ecause of the conflicting results
reached by the lower courts on the question whether the Pearce presumption of
vindictiveness applies when a sentence imposed after trial is greater than that
previously imposed after a guilty plea”. Id. at 798 (emphasis added). The Court
denied application of the presumption and, in doing so, partially overturned
Pearce. Id. at 801-02. (As noted supra, Pearce consisted of two consolidated
cases. The latter was factually similar to that before the Court; therefore, that
portion of Pearce was overruled.)
The Court held: where a guilty plea is successfully appealed and followed
by a trial, a higher sentence should not be presumed vindictive, because the
increase is much more likely to be the result of increased information presented
to the judge, rather than based on vindictiveness. Id. Utilizing the reasonable-
likelihood standard first announced in Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 27, the Court
emphasized that the Pearce presumption applies only where
there is a reasonable likelihood that the increase in
sentence is the product of actual vindictiveness on the
part of the sentencing authority. Where there is no such
reasonable likelihood, the burden remains upon the
defendant to prove actual vindictiveness.

14
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 15 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

Id. at 799-800 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis
added).
i.
Against the backdrop of this Supreme Court precedent, we turn to this
court’s split-panel decision in United States v. Floyd, 519 F.2d 1031 (5th Cir.
1975), which pre-dated a great deal of the Court’s vindictiveness decisions,
including McCullough (1986). Floyd considered whether the Pearce presumption
applies when a second judge, after trial, imposes a greater sentence than that
imposed by a first judge, after a guilty plea. Id. at 1032. That issue was joined
by two great, former judges (later, chief judges) on our court: Judge Charles
Clark, writing for the majority; and Judge James Plemon Coleman, in dissent.
Defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced by the judge who accepted
the plea. Because that judge had not advised defendant about an aspect of the
sentence prior to accepting the plea, however, he granted defendant’s § 2255
motion and withdrew the guilty plea; and defendant received a jury trial before
a different judge. Defendant was found guilty and received a greater sentence
than that imposed on his guilty plea. Id. at 1032.
At sentencing, the second judge stated that, in addition to reviewing the
presentence investigation report, he had talked with counsel and the probation
officer. But, the judge stated he had admonished them that he “did not want to
know anything about the circumstances in connection with [the withdrawn] plea
before another judge in this court”. Id. at 1033 (emphasis added). At sentencing,
the second judge also stated he was basing the sentence, as he had “done in
similar cases in the past”, solely on the offense and evidence. Id.
In reviewing Supreme Court precedent, Floyd noted correctly that,
“[a]bsent vindictiveness or the possibility of vindictiveness, more severe
sentences imposed following reconviction are constitutionally valid”. Id. (citing
Chaffin, 412 U.S. at 29; Colten, 407 U.S. at 116; Pearce, 395 U.S. at 723)

15
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 16 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

(emphasis added). Floyd then noted that, “Blackledge [in 1974] . . . most recently
reaffirmed this principle”; and it next quoted the above-described, resulting
“realistic likelihood of ‘vindictiveness’” standard developed in Pearce, Colten, and
Chaffin. Id. (quoting Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 27).
If such “realistic likelihood” exists, Floyd acknowledged the above-
discussed Pearce standard regarding the sentencing-judge-stated objective
reasons that would permit the greater sentence. Id. Reflecting the extremely
careful analysis employed in Floyd, the majority opinion then addressed the
above-discussed factor not addressed in Pearce: “that the second sentencing
judge . . . was a different judge from the first”. Id. at 1034. (As discussed supra,
this two-judges-in-Pearce point was acknowledged ten years later in
McCullough.)
Floyd contrasted any prior-sentence knowledge of the second judge in
Floyd with that of the second judge in Pearce, noting that, in Floyd, “the second
. . . affirmatively avoided knowledge of the original sentence. Such lack of
knowledge is clearly probative of an absence of actual vindictiveness”. Id.
(emphasis added). Of course, there being no actual vindictiveness did not end
Floyd’s inquiry; it moved to application of the reasonable-likelihood-of-
vindictiveness standard. The majority opinion’s painstaking, insightful analysis
is reflected in how it framed the question:
However, the broader question we face is whether, in
and of itself, such intentional insulation (together with
the judge’s independent basis for his more severe
sentence) so negates the possibility of vindictiveness as
to render unnecessary Pearce’s prophylactic showing
that subsequent conduct was the basis for the increase.
Id. at 1034.
After careful analysis of the existing precedent, Floyd held the Pearce
presumption applied. Id. In doing so, ten years before its being noted by the
Supreme Court in McCullough, the Floyd court observed: “The meaning of

16
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 17 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

Pearce for today’s case must take into account that the second sentencing judge
in Pearce was a different judge from the first sentencing judge”—a fact not
mentioned in Pearce, but clear from the underlying state court opinion. Id. at
1034 n.5 (citing State v. Pearce, 151 S.E.2d 571 (N.C. 1966)) (emphasis added).
As a result, Floyd focused on “the institutional interests involved and procedures
to be followed”, id. (emphasis added), and concluded that the same threat of
vindictiveness present in Pearce was present in Floyd: “The same sort of hazard
exists that defendants will be deterred in exercising their right to seek review
because of a reasonable apprehension that judges who work together daily and
must preside at each other’s retrials will have a stake in discouraging such
reviews”, id. at 1035 (emphasis added). The majority vacated the sentence,
because the requisite, stated bases for imposing the greater sentence had not
been provided. Id. The matter was “remanded for proceedings consistent with
Pearce”. Id.
The dissent from applying the Pearce presumption was based on
concluding that “resentencing [had been] affirmatively shown to have been
utterly bereft of any ‘realistic likelihood of vindictiveness’”. Id. at 1036. In that
regard, the dissent was “unwilling to accept as a matter of law the idea
expressed in the majority opinion that there can be ‘a reasonable apprehension
that judges who work together daily and must preside at [each] other’s retrials
will have a stake in discouraging such reviews’”. Id. (emphasis added). It also
found that apprehension “wholly unsupported by the facts in [the] case”. Id.
Since Floyd was announced in 1975, it has been cited by our court only
four times—most recently in 1983. See United States v. Henry, 709 F.2d 298,
315 n.24 (5th Cir. 1983); Gamble v. Estelle, 551 F.2d 654, 655 (5th Cir. 1977);
Hardwick v. Doolittle, 558 F.2d 292, 299 (5th Cir. 1977); Dan J. Sheehan Co. v.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 520 F.2d 1036, 1041 (5th Cir.
1975). None of these cases relied on Floyd’s holding.

17
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 18 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

Our court is bound not only by the result of an opinion, “but also [by] those
portions of the opinion necessary to that result . . . .” Seminole Tribe v. Florida,
517 U.S. 44, 67 (1996) (citations omitted). McCullough expressly rejected part
of the basis for Floyd’s reasoning—there having been different sentencing judges
in Pearce. Moreover, McCullough held having different sentencers was one of
the primary reasons that the presumption was unnecessary. Restated, the
possible same-court institutional and collegial pressures that were of concern to
Floyd were held in McCullough not to require the presumption. Accordingly, we
hold, as Rodriguez’ counsel conceded at oral argument, that Floyd was overruled
by McCullough.
In doing so, we join our seven sister circuits that, as discussed below, do
not apply the presumption when different judges preside over the first and
second sentencing. See United States v. Anderson, 440 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir.
2006) (collecting cases); Gonzalez v. Wolfe, 290 F. App’x 799, 813 (6th Cir. 2008)
(unpublished), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1016 (2009). Some of these circuits,
however, hold the presumption is inapplicable in this different-sentencers
situation only if the second states objective, non-vindictive reasons for imposing
the greater sentence (added condition). See Anderson, 440 F.3d at 1016;
Macomber v. Hannigan, 15 F.3d 155, 156-57 (10th Cir. 1994); Rock v.
Zimmerman, 959 F.2d 1237, 1257 (3d Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993); see also United States v. Newman,
6 F.3d 623, 630-31 (9th Cir. 1993) (seeming to impose the added condition). But
see Gonzalez, 290 F. App’x at 813; United States v. Cheek, 3 F.3d 1057, 1064 (7th
Cir. 1993); United States v. Perez, 904 F.2d 142, 146 (2d Cir. 1990). The Third
and Tenth Circuits cite McCullough in support of imposing this added condition.
See Macomber, 15 F.3d at 157; Rock, 959 F.2d at 1257-58. McCullough stated,
as quoted supra: “Here [in McCullough], the second sentencer provide[d] an on-
the-record, wholly logical, nonvindictive reason for the sentence. We read Pearce

18
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 19 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

to require no more[,] particularly since trial judges must be accorded broad
discretion in sentencing”. 475 U.S. at 140 (citing Wasman, 468 U.S. at 563-64).
It may be that this added-condition difference of opinion in the seven
circuits arises, as can happen, from the Supreme Court’s repeated
summarization and quotation from its vindictiveness decisions. And, none of
these circuits addresses this added-condition difference of opinion.
Arguably, the evolved reasonable-likelihood-of-vindictiveness standard
negates this added condition. See Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. at 798-800.
Neither party, however, has raised this added-condition issue. See Vontsteen,
950 F.2d at 1086 (holding it is within our discretion to decline to consider issues
not raised on appeal). In any event, as discussed infra, because the second judge
stated more than sufficient reasons for the greater sentence, we do not need to
reach the issue. In other words, even assuming the added condition is required,
the record amply demonstrates that the second judge more than fulfilled that
condition. Along that line, regardless of whether the added condition is required,
the second judge should obviously state such reasons. They assist not only in
our reviewing a vindictiveness challenge but also in reviewing other challenges
to the sentence as well.
ii.
Therefore, we are not bound by Floyd to presume vindictiveness per se.
Nonetheless, as noted above and as addressed, for example, in Alabama v.
Smith, 490 U.S. at 799-800, we must still consider whether there was a
reasonable likelihood that the increase in Rodriguez’ sentence was due to actual
vindictiveness.
As noted, in remanding this matter, the prior panel required “resentencing
before a different district judge”. Rodriguez, 306 F. App’x at 138-39. In doing
so, it stated: “The remedy of resentencing by a different district judge is not
based on any misstep by the original sentencing judge; instead, it reflects a need

19
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 20 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

to remove the taint of the original error by the government”—its breach of the
plea agreement. Id. at 139 n.3 (emphasis added). As support for the different-
judge requirement, our court cited Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 263
(1971) (requiring that defendant who seeks to have his sentence vacated for
breach of a plea agreement be resentenced by a different judge, though the
original judge committed no error), and United States v. Saling, 205 F.3d 764,
768 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding such a defendant may choose between “specific
performance [of the plea agreement], which requires that the sentence be
vacated and that the defendant be resentenced by a different judge; or . . .
withdrawal of the guilty plea, and the opportunity to plead anew, which requires
vacation of both the conviction and the sentence” (citing United States v. Palomo,
998 F.2d 253, 256 (5th Cir.1993))). Needless to say, this different-judge
requirement, because of breach of a plea agreement, also decreased greatly the
possibility of vindictiveness.
In addition, there is absolutely no evidence that the second judge was
reasonably likely to impose a vindictive sentence. Rodriguez has not shown, for
example, some relationship between the first and second judges, or a desire to
enforce decisions by their court, that would induce the second judge to act in that
fashion. Nor, as another example, has Rodriguez shown that the second judge
has some sort of bias against him, including because Rodriguez showed breach
of his plea agreement by the Government. Nor, as a final example, has he shown
the second judge seeks to discourage appeals.
In short, based on this record, there is no reason to think any likelihood
of vindictiveness is inherent in this situation—quite the contrary. The second
judge conducted not only an independent review of the record and PSR, but he
also took the further step of having “the probation officer . . . provide the [judge]
with the underlying ATF reports regarding the weapons purchases” and
independently examining that evidence. There being no reasonable likelihood

20
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 21 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

of vindictiveness is reflected in the judge’s response, after imposing sentence,
when Rodriguez, as discussed supra, expressed his confusion to the judge
regarding receiving that greater sentence, even though, as Rodriguez noted, the
Government had breached the plea agreement at the first sentencing. The judge
stated:
I have ruled on the objections your lawyer told me were
extant. I based my own independent recollection of the
evidence. I have read the entire file. I am not basing
my ruling on any statement made to [the first judge]. I
made my own independent assessment of the
evaluations. I reviewed the ATF file. This is clearly
within the scope of the 5th Circuit’s mandate as I
perceive the mandate to read.
In sum, because there is no reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness, the
presumption of vindictiveness does not apply. Again, because there was no
error, our plain-error review ends at this point regarding presumed
vindictiveness.
b.
Of course, as discussed supra, where, as here, that presumption does not
apply, defendant may still show a due-process violation by showing actual
vindictiveness. E.g., McCullough, 475 U.S. at 138 (citing Wasman, 468 U.S. at
569); see Pearce, 395 U.S. at 725. As noted, Rodriguez also claims such
vindictiveness; but, he did not raise this contention until his reply brief here. As
discussed infra, that point, however, was addressed in the Government’s brief.
For obvious reasons, our court generally will not consider an issue raised
for the first time in a reply brief. E.g., United States v. Brown, 305 F.3d 304, 307
n.4 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Prince, 868 F.2d 1379, 1386 (5th Cir.
1989)). Adding insult to procedural injury here is that the actual-vindictiveness
issue, not raised until the reply brief, was not even raised in district court. As

21
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 22 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

discussed supra, no form of vindictiveness—presumed or actual—was claimed
there.
Nevertheless, also for obvious reasons, “we ordinarily have the discretion
to decide legal issues that are not timely raised”. Vontsteen, 950 F.2d at 1091
(citing United States v. Giovannetti, 928 F.2d 225 (7th Cir. 1991) (plain-error
review)). Accordingly, that includes “consider[ing] issues not raised in an initial
brief” on appeal. Estate of Lisle v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 341 F.3d 364,
384 (5th Cir. 2003), mandate recalled and modified on other grounds by 431 F.3d
439 (5th Cir. 2005); cf. United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 346-47 (5th Cir.
2009) (“As a general rule, a party waives any argument that it fails to brief on
appeal. However, this court has recognized an exception to this rule whereby we
will consider a point of error not raised on appeal when it is necessary to prevent
a miscarriage of justice.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Martinez v.
Mukasey, 519 F.3d 532, 545-46 (5th Cir. 2008) (“For obvious reasons, we
generally do not consider contentions raised for the first time at oral argument.
. . . In our discretion, because this is a question of statutory construction, we will
consider it.”). Present here is one of those exceptions to not reviewing an issue
first raised in a reply brief.
This exception arises out of the Government’s, as noted, addressing actual
vindictiveness in its brief. The general rule against not considering an issue not
raised until the reply brief is
view[ed] . . . differently when a new issue is raised in
the appellee’s brief and the appellant responds in his
reply brief. Cousin v. Trans Union Corp. 246 F.3d 359,
n.22 (5th Cir. 2001) and Vallecillo v. United States
HUD, 155 F. App’x 764, 766 n.1 (5th Cir. 2005). In that
situation, the court avoids the more unfair scenario that
occurs when “an appellant raises a completely new
issue in its reply brief, disadvantaging the appellee, and
for which the procedural bar concerning initial briefs
was properly developed and utilized.” Cousin, 246 F.3d

22
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 23 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

at 373. This situation is not present in this case because
the government raised the issue presented by
[appellant,] eliminating any surprise.

United States v. Ramirez, 557 F.3d 200, 203 (5th Cir. 2009).
Although Rodriguez’ opening brief had not claimed actual vindictiveness,
the Government asserted in its brief that “Rodriguez has not shown any actual
vindictiveness”. Considering this assertion, there is no prejudice to the
Government for our exercising our discretion to consider Rodriguez’ quite
belated actual-vindictiveness claim.
Because this reply-brief claim was not raised in district court, we will
assume review is for plain error. Arguably an even more strict standard of
review could apply, such as that to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. Cf.
United States. v. Miller, 576 F.3d 528, 529-30 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2009) (applying
manifest-miscarriage-of-justice standard where defendant failed in district court
to move for judgment of acquittal; relief is granted only if there has been a
“manifest miscarriage of justice, which is found if the record is devoid of evidence
pointing to guilt”. (quoting United States v. Green, 293 F.3d 886, 895 (5th Cir.
2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We need not decide that question
because the claim fails even under the more lenient review for plain error.
Along that line, it is well established that there can never be plain error
if the issue is a factual one, which could have been resolved in district court upon
proper objection. E.g., United States v. Lee, No. 09-40099, 2010 WL 742592, at
*3 (5th Cir. 4 March 2010) (quoting United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 50 (5th
Cir. 1991)). Although an issue of fact, actual vindictiveness vel non is not,
however, within that category. It is questionable such an actual-vindictiveness
objection could be resolved in district court. Cf. Vontsteen, 950 F.2d at 1090
(presumed vindictiveness). Moreover, it is the reviewing, not the district, court

23
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 24 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

that decides whether the district court’s sentence was pursuant to actual
vindictiveness.
Our exercising our discretion to review this claim is, in large part, to make
absolutely clear that the second judge committed no error. Acting entirely
within our mandate, the second judge conducted an independent, objective
analysis of the PSR and the ATF reports.
Rodriguez contends the record shows the second judge acted vindictively
because: he summarily overruled Rodriguez’ objections to the PSR; and, he did
not allow the Government to contribute to the sentencing hearing. Neither
matter even remotely suggests vindictiveness.
The record reflects that the second judge carefully considered Rodriguez’
objections. Moreover, Rodriguez has offered no authority requiring the second
judge to state his reasons for denying them. Cf. United States v. Rocha, 916
F.2d 219, 239 (5th Cir. 1990) (affirming district court’s having “summarily
overruled [defendant’s] objections to such evidence”).
Rodriguez does, apparently, recognize the patent absurdity of his
contention that the second judge’s stated intention not to engage the
Government at resentencing somehow evinces vindictiveness. He admits in his
reply brief that his contention creates a Catch-22 for the district court:
according to Rodriguez, the second judge is vindictive for not having engaged the
Government; but, had the judge done so, he would have caused the Government,
once again, to breach its plea agreement. The record shows, as discussed infra,
that the second judge was entitled to rely on other bases, negating any need to
solicit input from the Government.
Again, there is simply no evidence of actual vindictiveness. Therefore,
there was no error. In sum, our plain-error review for vindictiveness—presumed
or actual—ends.

24
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 25 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

B.
In the alternative, Rodriguez claims the advisory guidelines sentencing
range used to impose his sentence was not supported by the requisite
preponderance of the evidence. Although, post-Booker, the Guidelines are
advisory only, and an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must still properly calculate the
advisory guidelines sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to
impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
In that respect, for properly preserved claims, a sentencing court’s
application of the guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for
clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.
2008) (citing United States v. Juarez Duarte, 513 F.3d 204 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
128 S. Ct. 2452 (2008)); United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir.
2005). In that regard, those factual findings must be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. E.g., United States v. Duhon, 541 F.3d 391, 395
(5th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005)).
Here, however, as Rodriguez acknowledges, review is only for plain error
because, at resentencing, he objected on bases different from those presented
here. Villegas, 404 F.3d at 358. As discussed supra, to establish reversible plain
error, Rodriguez must show a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial
rights. E.g., Baker, 538 F.3d at 332 (citing Thompson, 454 F.3d at 464). Again,
if reversible plain error is established, we still retain discretion whether to
correct such error and, generally, will do so only if it seriously affects the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
Rodriguez contends: the district court’s calculations for the base offense
level and the aggravating-role and obstruction-of-justice enhancements were not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence; and, therefore, each claimed error
constitutes reversible plain error for which we should grant relief. Rodriguez

25
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 26 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

asserts that the district court’s claimed error for each of these calculations lies
in its relying on the PSR.
“[A] district court may adopt the facts contained in a PSR without further
inquiry if those facts have an adequate evidentiary basis with sufficient indicia
of reliability and the defendant does not present rebuttal evidence or otherwise
demonstrate that the information in the PSR is unreliable”. United States v.
Cabrera, 288 F.3d 163, 173-74 (5th Cir. 2002). For the following reasons, the
PSR contained sufficient facts to provide an adequate evidentiary basis for
calculating the three belatedly challenged sentencing elements: the base offense
level and the aggravating-role and obstruction-of-justice enhancements to it.
For the base offense level, the PSR contains numerous details regarding
Rodriguez’s firearms dealings. (Moreover, in addition to considering the PSR,
the second judge considered the ATF reports and, on the record, identified each
of the weapons for which he deemed Rodriguez responsible.) For the
aggravating-role enhancement, the PSR shows Rodriguez was in charge of the
daily operations of this private security company (BCPD) and possessed final
decision-making authority. Finally, for the obstruction-of-justice enhancement,
the PSR shows that, during the raid, federal agents learned that BCPD guards
had received advance warnings from their supervisors that law enforcement
agents were arresting the guards and had been told to vacate their job sites if
their work documents were not in order.
Rodriguez, however, insists he provided rebuttal evidence that prevented
the district court’s being entitled to rely on the PSR. “If information is presented
to the sentencing judge with which the defendant would take issue, the
defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the information cannot be
relied upon because it is materially untrue, inaccurate or unreliable.” United
States v. Angulo, 927 F.2d 202, 205 (5th Cir. 1991). Rodriguez maintains he met
this burden by submitting written objections to the PSR. These objections,

26
 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 27 Date Filed: 03/25/2010

No. 09-20181

however, are not evidence—they are merely “unsworn assertions”. United States
v. Lghodaro, 967 F.2d 1028, 1030 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing United States v.
Sanders, 942 F.2d 894, 897-98 (5th Cir. 1991)).
Because no testimony or other evidence was submitted to rebut the
information in the PSR, the district court was free to adopt the PSR’s findings
without further inquiry or explanation. United States v. Mir, 919 F.2d 940, 943
(5th Cir. 1990) (citing United States v. Mueller, 902 F.2d 336, 346 (5th Cir.
1990)). The district court committed no error. Again, our plain-error review
draws to a close.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

27