Discretion, Not Obligation: The Fourth Circuit Clarifies the Scope of De Novo Resentencing Under the Mandate Rule — Commentary on United States v. Robert Benton, Jr. (4th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

In United States v. Robert Benton, Jr., Nos. 23-4009 & 23-6019 (4th Cir. Aug. 12 2025) (unpublished), the Fourth Circuit reaffirmed and sharpened the contours of two oft-conflated doctrines that govern federal resentencing:

The Mandate Rule, which limits what a lower court may decide on remand;
The Sentencing Package Doctrine, which allows holistic reconsideration of sentences when any part of a sentencing package is vacated.

Robert Benton had long, complicated criminal litigation dating back to 1998. After partial success on appeal in 2022, his case returned to the district court for resentencing. During that resentencing he asserted, for the first time, that the Government’s 1998 information seeking enhanced penalties under 21 U.S.C. § 851 was untimely. The district court refused to entertain the argument, re-imposed a 420-month sentence, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

While the opinion is unpublished, it supplies an important clarification: a general mandate for de novo resentencing gives the district court permission, but not an obligation, to consider new or previously abandoned arguments not within the scope of the remand.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to decline Benton’s newly-raised § 851 timeliness challenge.
The panel held that, even assuming the remand was “de novo,” a district court has discretion to ignore new sentencing arguments that are not necessary to effectuate the mandate.
The Court rejected application of the third exception to the mandate rule (“blatant error resulting in serious injustice”) because no controlling precedent establishes that filing a § 851 information after jury selection is untimely.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The opinion relies heavily on prior Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court authorities defining the mandate rule and resentencing scope:

United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2012) — distinguishes between issues the district court may revisit and those it must address after remand.
United States v. Cannady, 63 F.4th 259 (4th Cir. 2023) — clarifies that de novo resentencing allows (but does not compel) consideration of new evidence.
United States v. Ventura, 864 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2017) & United States v. Richardson, 96 F.4th 659 (4th Cir. 2024) — articulate the sentencing-package doctrine.
Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) — recognizes district courts’ broad discretion at resentencing, cited for general de novo principles.
United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64 (4th Cir. 1993) — foundational case on mandate rule exceptions; three-part exception test quoted.
United States v. Beasley, 495 F.3d 142 (4th Cir. 2007) — establishes absence of controlling precedent on when “trial” begins for § 851 filings.

Together, these cases create a hierarchy: the sentencing-package doctrine permits reconsideration; the mandate rule limits obligation; Bell’s exceptions create narrow escape hatches.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Mandate Rule vs. De Novo Resentencing.
The Court starts by recognizing that its prior remand may have been for de novo resentencing. However, it stresses that “de novo” merely authorizes the court to revisit all sentencing issues; it does not require the court to do so. The district court thus did not violate the mandate rule by declining Benton’s late § 851 argument.
Sentencing Package Doctrine as a Grant of Discretion.
The doctrine allows a district judge to restructure the entire sentence when one count’s sentence is vacated, recognizing the interrelated nature of multi-count sentencing. But, citing Susi and Pileggi, the panel underscores that the doctrine is permissive — it furnishes a tool, not a command.
Application of Bell’s Third Exception.
Benton argued that the district court should invoke Bell’s “blatant error” exception. The panel found no controlling precedent holding that § 851 information after jury selection is per se untimely; therefore, any error could not be “blatant,” foreclosing the exception.
Absence of Prejudice.
Even if the district court erred in not addressing the § 851 issue, Benton conceded the accuracy of the prior convictions. Thus, the panel found no prejudice warranting relief.

3.3 Potential Impact

This decision, albeit unpublished, will likely influence trial and appellate strategy within the Fourth Circuit:

Resentencing Litigation Practices. Defense counsel should raise all viable arguments at the earliest opportunity. An “everything is open” assumption at de novo resentencing is unsafe.
Government Strategy on § 851 Filings. The Court sidesteps deciding when “trial” begins under § 851(a). Prosecutors may still file informations after jury selection, but lingering uncertainty remains.
Appellate Mandate Drafting. The opinion signals that detailed mandates limiting or expanding resentencing scope are crucial. Ambiguities will default to district-court discretion.
Standard for Bell Exception. By tying “blatant error” to the existence of controlling precedent, the panel sets a high bar for litigants invoking the exception.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandate Rule: When an appellate court sends a case back (“remands”) it issues a “mandate.” The lower court must follow that mandate and cannot decide anything outside its scope unless an exception applies.
Sentencing Package Doctrine: If one part of a multi-count sentence is vacated, the entire sentence package can be unwrapped so the judge can create a coherent new package. Think of re-tying a bundle of sticks after removing one.
De Novo Resentencing: “From the beginning.” The district court treats sentencing as if it is starting fresh, but only within the limits set by the appellate mandate.
§ 851 Information: A notice filed by the Government listing prior drug convictions that, if timely, trigger higher statutory minimum or maximum sentences. It must be filed “before trial” (the exact cutoff remains unsettled).
Bell Exceptions: Three rare situations where a lower court may deviate from the mandate: (1) subsequent events, (2) new evidence, or (3) blatant error causing serious injustice.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Benton, Jr. crystallizes an important but sometimes misunderstood point: a district court’s power to reconsider sentencing issues after a de novo remand is not a concomitant duty. The Fourth Circuit’s reaffirmation of this principle places a premium on strategic preservation of issues and clarifies that the “sentencing package doctrine” is a permissive tool rather than a compulsory roadmap. Litigants seeking to raise new arguments at resentencing must persuade the district court to exercise its discretion, or demonstrate that an established Bell exception compels consideration. Absent controlling precedent establishing clear error, arguments framed as “blatant injustice” will likely fail.

Going forward, defense and government counsel alike should draft appeals and remand language with precision, recognizing that district courts retain — but are not obliged to use — broad discretion when crafting a new sentence after partial appellate victory.