context: Our holding does not preclude this court from limiting the scope of the issues for which we remand, and thus limiting the district court's consideration to evidence and arguments relevant to those issues.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 34 F.3d 799, 800
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that, where it was clear that the court of appeals had limited the issues on resentencing to the one issue raised in the defendant's first appeal, the district court did not err in declining to consider other issues raised by the defendant on remand
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., United States v. Pimentel, 34 F.3d 799, 800 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (holding that, where it was clear that the court of appeals had limited the issues on resentencing to the one issue raised in the defendant’s first appeal, the district court did not err in declining to consider other issues raised by the defendant on remand); see also Caterino, 29 F.3d at 1394 (holding that the district court’s discretion to consider any issue relevant to sentencing may be limited by the express or implied limits in the remand mandate).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 29 F.3d 1394, 1394
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that the district court's discretion to consider any issue relevant to sentencing may be limited by the express or implied limits in the remand mandate
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., United States v. Pimentel, 34 F.3d 799, 800 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (holding that, where it was clear that the court of appeals had limited the issues on resentencing to the one issue raised in the defendant’s first appeal, the district court did not err in declining to consider other issues raised by the defendant on remand); see also Caterino, 29 F.3d at 1394 (holding that the district court’s discretion to consider any issue relevant to sentencing may be limited by the express or implied limits in the remand mandate).