United States v. Ronnie J. Greer , 203 F. App'x 307 ( 2006 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 31, 2006
No. 06-12875 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00006-CR-CDL-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONNIE J. GREER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(October 31, 2006)
Before BLACK, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
For the second time, Ronnie J. Greer appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1) for being a felon in possession of ammunition. For the
second time, he argues that the government failed to prove venue at his trial and
that his trial counsel’s failure to object to venue constituted ineffective assistance
of counsel, and for the second time, we affirm his conviction.
Greer’s conviction resulted after government agents found ammunition in
his Cussetta, Georgia home. Greer was tried and convicted in the Columbus
Division of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. At
trial, he did not object to venue, and his attorney did not move for acquittal based
on improper venue. During his first appeal, Greer contended that the prosecution
never proved that venue was proper and that his attorney’s failure to move for
acquittal on that basis constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. In that appeal,
we ruled against Greer on both of those issues and affirmed his conviction.
However, we vacated his sentence and remanded the case to the district court for
resentencing. Now, Greer is again attempting to appeal his conviction by raising
those same two issues.
Greer’s contentions are foreclosed by the law of the case doctrine, which
makes the findings of fact and law of an appellate court binding in all subsequent
proceedings in the same case in either the trial court or on appeal. This That And
The Other Gift and Tobacco, Inc. v. Cobb County, Ga., 439 F.3d 1275, 1283 (11th
2
Cir. 2006). Furthermore, the law of the case doctrine bars relitigation of issues that
were decided either explicitly or by necessary implication. See Schiavo v.
Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (“The [law-of-the-case] doctrine
operates to preclude courts from revisiting issues that were decided explicitly or by
necessary implication in a prior appeal.”). The law of the case doctrine can be
overcome only when: (1) new and substantially different evidence has been
produced, or there is a change in the controlling authority; or (2) the prior decision
was clearly erroneous and would result in a manifest injustice. This That And The
Other Gift and Tobacco, Inc., 439 F.3d at 1283.
In deciding Greer’s first appeal, this Court explicitly stated that Greer had
waived his objection to venue by failing to raise it before the district court. United
States v. Greer, 440 F.3d 1267, 1271 (11th Cir. 2006). We then took judicial
notice that Cussetta, Georgia lies within the Columbus Division of the Middle
District of Georgia, and we held that Greer had suffered no prejudice from his
counsel’s failure to object to venue. Id. at 1272.
On this appeal, Greer presents no new evidence and points out no change in
controlling authority that would require us to abandon our prior holdings. Nor
does he present any evidence indicating that our prior decision was clearly
erroneous or would result in manifest injustice. See This That And The Other Gift
3
and Tobacco, Inc., 439 F.3d at 1283. Because Greer unsuccessfully raised both his
failure to prove venue and his related ineffective assistance of counsel arguments
in a prior appeal, the law of the case doctrine bars our review of these claims in this
appeal.
AFFIRMED.
4