Cir.2002). Booth contends that when a case is remanded on an “open record” pursuant to United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc), the resentencing court may not consider sentencing issues decided at the original sentencing hearing that went unchallenged during the prior appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Matthews did not disturb the general rule that the “law of the case” doctrine does not preclude a resentencing court from “reconsider[ing] the entire sentencing package, including the factual findings regarding the relatedness of prior convictions used in calculating [defendant’s] criminal history.” United States v. Allen, 153 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir.1998); see also United States v. Petty, 80 F.3d 1384, 1388 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). In fact, in Matthews we reiterated the
holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category holding that when a defendant qualifies as a career felon it is not necessary to ascertain the defendants criminal history category because the sentencing guidelines mandate a criminal history category of vi holding that a resentencing court may reconsider a defendants criminal history category as long as the appellate court did not expressly or implicitly limit  the remand to only a portion of the sentence holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an upward variance after finding that the defendants criminal history category of i understated the seriousness of his criminal history holding that this court may reconsider an erroneous ruling as long as the appeal is current