When the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Vacated and Remanded case #19-7803 back to the District Court shouldn't the district Court have given Mr. Reid a Fair hearing for resentencing, Notice and the Application of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 to Count I.

By law the District Court cannot deny Mr. Reid the Application of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 to Count I, because Mr. Reid was charged with a Covered offense under the FSA.

Since the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals made a decision to Vacate and Remand case #19-7803 for reconsideration, shouldn't it have given instruction to the District Court to give relief under the FSA to Mr. Reid consistent with a full resentencing.

District Court violated the Mandate rule on Case #19-7803 by giving Mr. Reid FSA Act of 2010 relief and denying him a resentencing hearing relief.

In light of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and the District Court's error in its entirety. Vacated sentence, conviction on Count I.

Mr. Reid had a right to challenge the USPO's Amended Guideline Calculations consistent with the Application of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and the U.S. v. Baulding right to object to the Amended Guideline Calculations of Count I.

Whether the district court erred in denying Mr. Reid a fair hearing for resentencing and failing to bring him back to court for the application of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010