United States v. Charles W. Hubbard ( 2013 )

Case: 13-10211 Date Filed: 06/05/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10211
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:91-cr-00300-EAK-12
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES W. HUBBARD,
a.k.a. C.W.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 5, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-10211 Date Filed: 06/05/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Charles Hubbard appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Mr. Hubbard is currently serving a
sentence of life imprisonment for his 1993 conviction for conspiracy to possess
cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
In 1998, Mr. Hubbard filed his first § 3582(c)(2) motion pursuant to
Amendment 505 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which the district court denied. Mr.
Hubbard did not appeal that ruling. In 2009, Mr. Hubbard requested relief
pursuant to Amendment 505 for the second time, as well as under Amendment
706. The district court denied relief. We affirmed, holding that the law-of-the-
case-doctrine precluded the district court from granting Mr. Hubbard’s second
request for relief under Amendment 505 because the district court’s previous
denial on the merits of his first § 3582(c)(2) motion filed pursuant to Amendment
505 became a final order when Mr. Hubbard did not appeal it, and, thus, was the
law of the case. United States v. Hubbard, 384 F. App’x 931, 932 (11th Cir. 2010)
(unpublished).
In 2012, Mr. Hubbard filed a pro se § 3582(c)(2) motion requesting relief
pursuant to Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court
appointed Mr. Hubbard counsel, who argued for the third time in a supplemental
pleading that, though Mr. Hubbard was not eligible for relief pursuant to
Amendment 750, the court should reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment
2
Case: 13-10211 Date Filed: 06/05/2013 Page: 3 of 4
505. The district court denied Mr. Hubbard’s motion. Mr. Hubbard now appeals,
asserting that the district court had jurisdiction to reconsider his request for
Amendment 505 relief. He does not challenge the denial of relief under
Amendment 750.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision not to reduce a
sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1219
(11th Cir. 2005). We review application of the law-of-the-case doctrine de novo.
United States v. Bobo, 419 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2005). After review of the
record and consideration of the parties’ filings and briefs, we affirm the ruling of
the district court.
Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, “an issue decided at one stage of a case
is binding at later stages of the same case.” United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110
F.3d 1556, 1560-61 (11th Cir. 1997) (applying the law-of-the-case doctrine to
§ 3582(c)(2) proceedings). A decision of this Court binds all subsequent
proceedings in the same case as to explicit rulings and issues necessarily decided
by implication on the prior appeal. United States v. Tamayo, 80 F.3d 1514, 1520
(11th Cir. 2003). There are three exceptions to the law-of-the-case doctrine: (1) the
evidence in a subsequent trial or processing is substantially different; (2) there is a
change in controlling law; or (3) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and
would work manifest injustice. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d at 1561.
3
Case: 13-10211 Date Filed: 06/05/2013 Page: 4 of 4
The district court did not err by denying Mr. Hubbard’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.
The law-of-the-case doctrine precluded the court from granting Mr. Hubbard’s
third consecutive request for relief based on Amendment 505, as our affirmance of
the district court’s second denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion pursuant to
Amendment 505 in Hubbard is the law of the case. Mr. Hubbard has not
attempted to demonstrate that his case falls within any exception to the law-of-the-
case doctrine. 1 Regardless, Mr. Hubbard does not meet any of the exceptions to
the law-of-the-case doctrine because: (1) he presents no new evidence; (2) there
has not been an intervening law changing the application of Amendment 505 since
the district court ruled on his original motion or we ruled on his second motion;
and (3) he does not show that he would suffer a manifest injustice, as his life
sentence would still be within his new guideline range as revised by Amendment
505.2
AFFIRMED.
1
In his brief, Mr. Hubbard does not discuss the law of the case doctrine or our decision in
Hubbard.
2
We deny the government’s motion for summary affirmance and its motion to stay
briefing schedule, and conclude that no further briefing is necessary.
4