Did the Fifth Circuit misapply its restrictive interpretation of the mandate rule which does not permit de novo resentencing, but limits to resentencing to only those discrete particular issues identified by the appeals court for remand, when it affirmed petitioner's conviction for count one, vacated and remanded for resentencing on count two, but then permitted the district court to impose a different sentence for count one at resentencing?

Did the Fifth Circuit misapply its restrictive interpretation of the mandate rule which does not permit de novo resentencing, but limits to resentencing to only those discrete particular issues identified by the appeals court for remand, when it affirmed petitioner's conviction for count one, vacated and remanded for resentencing on count two, but then permitted the district court to impose a different sentence for count one at resentencing?