Clarifying Scope of Remand Resentencing and Notice Requirements Under Apprendi for Enhanced Sentences in RICO and Drug Conspiracy Cases

Introduction

United States v. Deonte Martin is a consolidated appeal from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided on June 3, 2025. The defendants – Napoleon Harris, Nathaniel Harris, Charlie Green, Jerry Green, Jr., and Deonte Jamal Martin – were members of an alleged drug-trafficking enterprise in Bradenton, Florida. Originally convicted under RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)), drug-conspiracy statutes (21 U.S.C. § 846), and related offenses including murder and kidnapping, they received life terms after resentencing on remand from United States v. Green, 981 F.3d 945 (11th Cir. 2020), which vacated their § 924(c) convictions. On resentencing, the appellants renewed objections to (1) the limited scope of the remand, (2) life sentences under RICO and drug statutes, (3) notice defects under 21 U.S.C. § 851, (4) drug-quantity calculations, (5) criminal history scoring, (6) career-offender treatment, and (7) Eighth Amendment challenges.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court affirmed in all respects. First, it held that a district court need not conduct a fully de novo resentencing when an appellate vacatur is limited to specific counts or penalties; it may “disentangle” the vacated portions while preserving other rulings. Second, the court rejected challenges to life sentences under RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1963(a)) and drug-conspiracy penalties (21 U.S.C. § 841(b)), explaining that Apprendi v. New Jersey and Alleyne v. United States require fact findings by the jury, not citation of penalty provisions in an indictment. Third, it found no defect in the § 851 informations, which adequately identified prior convictions and warned defendants of the maximum penalties. Fourth, the Court deemed any error in drug-quantity findings harmless, since each appellant’s total offense level remained unchanged by those calculations. Fifth and sixth, it declined to review downward-departure requests under Guidelines §§ 4A1.3 and 4B1.1(b), concluding either that no jurisdiction existed or that any guideline error was harmless. Finally, it held that the life sentence for Nathaniel Harris was substantively reasonable and did not violate the Eighth Amendment.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• United States v. Green, 981 F.3d 945 (11th Cir. 2020) – Vacatur of § 924(c) convictions and remand instructions.
• Stinson, 97 F.3d 466 (11th Cir. 1996) – A vacated sentence is “wholly nullified and the slate wiped clean.”
• Crape, 603 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2010) – Scope of an appellate mandate and district-court compliance.
• Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) – Sixth Amendment requirements for fact findings that increase statutory maximum or minimum sentences.
• 21 U.S.C. § 851 cases (DiFalco, Williams, Ladson) – Notice requirements for prior-conviction enhancements.
• Rice, 43 F.3d 601 (11th Cir. 1995) and Hansley, 54 F.3d 709 (11th Cir. 1995) – “Prior conviction” under § 841(b) may include overt acts committed after an earlier conviction.
• Jackson, 55 F.4th 846 (11th Cir. 2022), aff’d Brown v. United States, 602 U.S. 101 (2024) – Controlled-substance lists for career-offender and ACCA enhancements incorporate the list in effect at time of state conviction.
• Guidelines § 4B1.1 (“career offender”) and Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269 (11th Cir. 2023) – Inchoate drug crimes excluded absent explicit text.
• Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) and Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) – Reasonableness review of § 3553(a) factors and departures/variances.

2. Legal Reasoning

Remand Resentencing: The Court employed de novo review of mandate compliance (Crape) and held that a “general vacatur” permits limited resentencing, provided the district court considers changed Guidelines and relevant conduct (Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481 (2022)). Because Green vacated only the § 924(c) counts and attendant sentences, the district court could “disentangle” those counts without re-litigating every guideline issue.

Statutory Maximums & Apprendi: Life sentences under RICO § 1963(a) and § 841(b)(1)(B) recidivist penalties were upheld because the indictment alleged the substantive offenses (§ 1962(d), §§ 841(a)(1) & 846) and jury findings established all fact elements – including predicate violent acts – that raised the statutory ceiling. Apprendi/Alleyne require that penalty-enhancing facts be submitted to a jury, not that penalty provisions be named in the indictment.

§ 851 Notice: § 851 mandates written notice of prior convictions before trial, but does not compel perfect citation of every penalty bracket. The informations here timely identified the prior drug convictions and warned of “life” exposure, satisfying due-process and strategic-planning purposes.

Harmless Error: Drug-quantity findings and career-offender designation under Guidelines §§ 2D1.1 and 4B1.1 were harmless: each appellant’s base offense level was ultimately driven to 43 by cross-reference to the first-degree-murder guideline (§ 2A1.1), a level unaffected by drug calculations or career-offender status.

Departures and Variances: Nathaniel’s request under § 4A1.3(b) and Charlie’s implied departure requests were not reviewable because the district court did not believe it lacked authority. The Court also found no substantive abuse of discretion in declining to depart or vary.

Eighth Amendment / Youth: Miller/Graham principles apply to juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole; Nathaniel’s noncapital, Guidelines-range life sentence for crimes partly committed as an adult did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. The district court gave meaningful consideration to his youth and traumatic background but weighed them against the extreme violence of the crimes.

3. Impact

• District courts may tailor remand resentencings instead of full-blown de novo proceedings where appellate vacatur is confined to specific statutes or counts.
• Apprendi/Alleyne compliance is measured by jury-findings of fact, not by formal indictment of penalty provisions.
• § 851 notice need only identify prior convictions and potential maximum exposure; it need not enumerate every statutory subparagraph.
• Harmless-error principles will defeat challenges to drug-quantity and career-offender calculations when cross-references to violent-crime guides render such factors immaterial.
• Juvenile-offender jurisprudence does not automatically bar life terms within statutory and Guidelines limits for conduct largely committed as an adult.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Plenary Resentencing vs. Limited Resentencing: When only certain counts are vacated, a district court can “untie” those counts and leave other rulings intact instead of starting over completely.
• Apprendi v. New Jersey: Any fact that increases a sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Alleyne v. United States: Extends Apprendi to facts that increase statutory minimums.
• 21 U.S.C. § 851 notice: Written notice before trial of any prior felony convictions the government will use to enhance a defendant’s sentence.
• Harmless Error: A mistake that did not affect the outcome of the case or the defendant’s sentence.
• Career Offender Guideline (§ 4B1.1): Enhances the Guidelines range if a defendant has multiple qualifying prior convictions and the current offense is violent or drug-related.
• § 3553(a) Factors: Statutory list of factors (seriousness, deterrence, protection of the public, individual characteristics) a court must consider when imposing a sentence.

Conclusion

United States v. Deonte Martin clarifies that district courts are not mechanically bound to conduct full-scale resentencings when an appellate mandate vacates only certain counts or penalties. It reinforces that Apprendi and Alleyne attach to jury-found facts, not the presence of penalty citations in indictments, and that § 851’s notice requirements serve strategic fairness rather than hyper-technical formalism. By affirming life sentences under RICO and drug statutes, and rejecting juvenile-based Eighth Amendment challenges to noncapital life terms, the decision provides guidance on remand procedures, statutory enhancement notice, and the interplay between violent-crime cross-references and harmless-error review. Taken together, these holdings will shape future sentencing practice in racketeering and drug conspiracies by streamlining remands and focusing appellate scrutiny on substantive prejudice rather than procedural perfection.