The court wrote: From the earliest days of the republic, and continuing through today, the Supreme Court has “consistently held that an inferior court has no power or authority to deviate from the mandate issued by an appellate court.” Briggs v. Pa. R. Co., 334 U.S. 304, 306, 68 S.Ct. 1039, 92 L.Ed. 1403 (1948) (citing Ex parte Sibbald v. United States, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 488, 9 L.Ed. 1167 (1838); Boyce’s Ex’rs v. Grundy, 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 275, 9 L.Ed. 127 (1835); The Santa Maria, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 431, 6 L.Ed. 359 (1825); Himely v. Rose, 5 Cranch 313, 3 L.Ed. 111 (1809)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2106; In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247, 255, 16 S.Ct. 291, 40 L.Ed. 414 (1895). As the Court explained in Ex parte Sibbald v. United States, Whatever was before the court, and is disposed of, is considered as finally settled.

Counsel for the United States, Mr. Mekaru, objects to the granting of this motion. Respectfully submitted, /s Paul Croushore P.O. Box 19275 Cincinnati, OH 45275 (513) 225-6666 Attorney for Patrick John Corp MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR UPDATED OR SUPPLMENTAL PRESENTENCE REPORT Title 28 U.S.C. § 2106 permits appellate courts to grant limited or general remands. A general remand requires a de novo resentencing.