United States v. Thomas McGowan

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JANUARY 15, 2009
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
No. 08-14242
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00156-CR-T-30-EAJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS MCGOWAN,
a.k.a. Shank,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(January 15, 2009)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas McGowan appeals his 180-month sentence for possession of crack
cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(B)(iii), reimposed after we remanded to the district court for reconsideration
in light of Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007).
We reject McGowan’s argument that the district failed to comply with this
Court’s limited remand.1 The purpose of the remand was “to give [the district
court] an opportunity to indicate whether it would have imposed a different
sentence if it had understood that it had discretion to disagree with the Guidelines
policy expressed in the crack/powder disparity.” United States v. McGowan, No.
05-14932, 276 Fed. App’x 946, 949 (11th Cir. May 6, 2008). However, we
instructed that “[i]f the district court concludes that consideration of the
crack/powder disparity would make no difference in McGowan’s sentence, it need
not conduct a resentencing hearing, and may simply reenter the sentence
previously imposed.” Id.On remand, the district court issued an order in which it twice recited the
above-quoted instructions and stated that, after reviewing McGowan’s file, it was
reimposing a 180-month sentence. Thus, McGowan has shown no reversible error
1
We have plenary review over the district court’s interpretation of our mandate. Ad-
Vantage Tel. Directory Consultants, Inc. v. GTE Directories Corp., 943 F.2d 1511, 1517 (11th
Cir. 1991). A district court “may not alter, amend, or examine the mandate, or give any further
relief or review, but must enter an order in strict compliance with the mandate.” Piambino v.
Bailey, 757 F.2d 1112, 1119 (11th Cir. 1985).
2
on remand. We also reject McGowan’s argument that the district court’s
references to Amendment 706 of the Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) indicate that the district court misunderstood this Court’s mandate.
AFFIRMED.
3