Case: 19-13737 Date Filed: 04/14/2020 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-13737
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:94-cr-00220-SCB-MAP-5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRUCE WAYNE HARRISON,
a.k.a. Hopper,
a.k.a. Grasshopper,
a.k.a. Loose Bruce,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 14, 2020)
Case: 19-13737 Date Filed: 04/14/2020 Page: 2 of 3
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Bruce Wayne Harrison appeals pro se the denial of his second motion to
reduce his sentence.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Harrison received a below-guidelines
sentence of 592 months of imprisonment following his convictions for one count
of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, methamphetamine, and
marijuana,
21 U.S.C. § 846, eight counts of possessing cocaine and marijuana with
intent to distribute,
id. § 841(a)(1), and two counts of using a firearm in relation to
a drug trafficking crime,
18 U.S.C. § 924(c). After the district court denied
Harrison’s first motion to reduce based on Amendments 599 and 759 to the
Sentencing Guidelines, and we affirmed, United States v. Harrison, 741 F. App’x
765 (11th Cir. 2018), Harrison filed a second motion in which he argued that
Amendment 759 was an ex post facto law. We affirm.
Harrison’s argument that the application of Amendment 759, which made
him ineligible for relief under Amendment 599, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause
is barred by the law of the case. Under that doctrine, a party is barred from
relitigating an issue that a court necessarily or by implication decided against him
in an earlier appeal. United States v. Tamayo,
80 F.3d 1514, 1520 (11th Cir.1996).
Our earlier decision that Amendment 759 prevented the district court from further
reducing the below-guidelines sentence that Harrison had received is the law of the
2
Case: 19-13737 Date Filed: 04/14/2020 Page: 3 of 3
case. And that decision bars Harrison’s argument that Amendment 759 operates as
an ex post facto law. Harrison does not argue that an exception to the law of the
case doctrine applies to him, which is unsurprising because his ex post facto
argument is foreclosed by United States v. Colon,
707 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2013).
We AFFIRM the denial of Harrison’s second motion to reduce.
3
