Todd Honeycutt v. Bill Donat

MEMORANDUM

In a prior disposition, we reversed in part the district court’s order denying peti tioner Todd Honeycutt’s writ of habeas corpus, holding that Nevada had violated Honeycutt’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by admitting uncounseled statements in Honeycutt’s joint trial for sexual assault, kidnapping, and solicitation of murder. Honeycutt v. Donat, 535 Fed.Appx. 624, 629 (9th Cir.2013). We remanded the case to the district court to determine the appropriate remedy. Nevada appeals the district court’s subsequent order vacating Honeycutt’s solicitation of murder conviction in addition to his sexual assault and kidnapping convictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s compliance with our mandate. United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1092 (9th Cir.2000). With regard to matters that have been decided, the court “cannot vary [the mandate], or examine it for any other purpose than execution; or give any other or further relief; or review it, even for apparent error, upon any matter decided on appeal; or intermeddle with it, further than to settle so much as has been remanded.” In re Sanford Fork & Tool…