United States v. Williams ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
    June 14, 2006
    TENTH CIRCUIT                       Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.                                                        No. 05-3298
    (D. Kansas)
    JERRY LEE W ILLIAM S,                            (D.Ct. No. 03-CR-10140-JTM )
    Defendant - Appellant.
    OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
    Before KELLY, M cKA Y, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
    this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    Jerry Lee Williams was found guilty following a jury trial of being a felon
    in possession of a firearm, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g), and sentenced as an
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of
    law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
    citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
    the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    armed career criminal to 210 months imprisonment. On direct appeal, W illiams
    raised seven issues. W e affirmed his conviction, but vacated his sentence due to
    the district court’s belief the U nited States Sentencing Guidelines were
    mandatory. U nited States v. Williams, 
    403 F.3d 1188
    , 1199-1200 (10th Cir.)
    (William s I), cert. denied, 
    126 S.Ct. 178
     (2005). Upon remand, the district court
    imposed the mandatory minimum sentence— 180 months imprisonment— under
    the Armed Career Criminal Act. 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e). Exercising jurisdiction
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , we AFFIRM .
    W illiams raises four issues on appeal: (1) in William s I, this Court applied
    an incorrect standard in reviewing W illiams’ requested theory of the defense
    instruction on “fleeting possession”; (2) the district court erred in giving the jury
    a supplemental instruction on the issue of Williams’ knowing possession of the
    firearm; (3) mere movement of a firearm from one state to another does not
    satisfy the requirement of §922(g) that the firearm be possessed “in or affecting
    comm erce”; and (4) the district court erred in sentencing W illiams as an armed
    career criminal. W illiams admits his second and third issues are the same as
    those raised in William s I, and thus the “law of the case” doctrine applies. W e
    conclude his first and fourth issues also merely reiterate those raised in W illiam s
    I. See Williams I, 
    403 F.3d at 1195
    , n.7 & 1198.
    Under the law of the case doctrine, “when a court decides upon a rule of
    law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages
    -2-
    of the same case.” Arizona v. California, 
    460 U.S. 605
    , 618 (1983). Further,
    “w hen a case is appealed and remanded, the decision of the appellate court
    establishes the law of the case and ordinarily will be followed by both the trial
    court on remand and the appellate court in any subsequent appeal.” Rohrbaugh v.
    Celotex Corp., 
    53 F.3d 1181
    , 1183 (10th Cir.1995). “The law of the case
    doctrine is intended to prevent continued re-argument of issues already decided . .
    . .” Huffman v. Saul Holdings, Ltd. P’ship, 
    262 F.3d 1128
    , 1132 (10th Cir. 2001)
    (internal quotations and citation omitted). This Court has recognized only three
    narrow exceptions to the doctrine: “(1) when the evidence in a subsequent trial is
    substantially different; (2) when controlling authority has subsequently made a
    contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues; or (3) when the decision
    was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” M cIlravy v. Kerr-
    M cGee Coal Corp., 
    204 F.3d 1031
    , 1035 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and
    citations omitted). W illiams does not argue these exceptions and rightly so.
    None of these circumstances exists here. W e decided all issues raised in this
    appeal in William s I. The law of the case doctrine applies.
    A FFIR ME D.
    Entered by the C ourt:
    Terrence L. O ’Brien
    United States Circuit Judge
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-3298

Judges: Kelly, McKAY, O'Brien

Filed Date: 6/14/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024