United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20‐1162 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff‐Appellee, v. REX A. HOPPER, Defendant‐Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 4:17‐cr‐40034‐JPG‐1 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 2021 — DECIDED AUGUST 25, 2021 ____________________

Before RIPPLE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. In February 2018, Rex A. Hopper was convicted of conspiracy to distribute fifty or more grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 846, and 841(b)(1)(B). The district court ini‐ tially sentenced Mr. Hopper to 235 months’ imprisonment. On the previous appeal, we concluded that the district court had committed plain error in the calculation of the drug quantity for which Mr. Hopper was responsible and re‐ 2 No. 20‐1162 manded the case to the district court. See United States v. Hopper (Hopper I), 934 F.3d 740 (7th Cir. 2019). The district court ordered a revised presentence report. That report reduced to 1.17 kilograms the amount of “ice” methamphetamine for which Mr. Hopper was responsible. The new presentence report also assessed an additional criminal history point for a state burglary conviction; the plea for that crime was entered after the original federal sen‐ tence had been imposed but before our remand. After re‐ viewing the revised presentence report, Mr. Hopper submit‐ ted a pro se objection to its relevant‐conduct assessment. Specifically, he submitted that a jury, not the court, should have made the determination that the drugs at issue quali‐ fied as “ice” for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines. No‐ tably, Mr. Hopper did not object to the additional criminal history point for the state burglary conviction. The district court rejected Mr. Hopper’s pro se challenge to his relevant conduct. The court concluded that the issue of drug type, as opposed to drug quantity, already had been decided in the first appeal and was not within the scope of our remand. The court therefore declined to revisit the mat‐ ter. The district court then proceeded to craft a sentence that, in accord with our opinion, held Mr. Hopper responsible for 1.17 kilograms of “ice” methamphetamine and that also took into account his new state conviction for burglary. The dis‐ trict court reimposed a sentence of 235 months’ imprison‐ ment. Mr. Hopper now maintains that the district court com‐ mitted plain error in both the determination of the drug type and in the assessment of the additional criminal history point for the state burglary conviction. We conclude that the No. 20‐1162 3 district court correctly determined that our earlier remand order did not permit it to reconsider Mr. Hopper’s argument about the drug type and therefore properly rejected Mr. Hopper’s pro se objection. We further hold that the dis‐ trict court did not commit plain error in assessing Mr. Hop‐ per an additional criminal history point for his state burglary conviction. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. I BACKGROUND A. Conviction and Initial Sentencing In June 2017, a grand jury indicted Mr. Hopper on one count of conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine. Dur‐ ing a three‐day trial, members of the conspiracy as well as 1 law enforcement officers testified. Although most of th