United States v. Agholor ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 1, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-20670
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH CHIKE AGHOLOR,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-440-1
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joseph Chike Agholor (Agholor) pleaded guilty to a seven-
count indictment charging him with one count of illegal re-entry
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), one count of
unlawful procurement of naturalization in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1425(b), three counts of making false statements in passport
applications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542, and two counts of
fraud in connection with identification documents in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(4). This court vacated his sentence and
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-20670
-2-
remanded his case to the district court for resentencing. See
United States v. Agholor, No. 01-20222 (5th Cir. March 25, 2002).
After Agholor was resentenced, he filed the instant appeal.
Agholor argues that, for sentencing purposes, the district
court should have grouped his convictions under United States
Sentencing Guidelines § 3D1.2 into one group. Agholor concedes
that he unsuccessfully raised the same argument in his original
appeal. He states that he is raising the issue in this appeal to
preserve it for further review.
On a second appeal following remand, the only issue for
consideration is whether the district court reached its final
decree in due pursuance of this court’s previous opinion and
mandate. Burroughs v. FFP Operating Partners, L.P., 70 F.3d 31,
33 (5th Cir. 1995). “[A] prior decision of this court will be
followed without re-examination . . . unless (i) the evidence on
a subsequent trial was substantially different, (ii) controlling
authority has since made a contrary decision of the law
applicable to such issues, or (iii) the decision was clearly
erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” See United
States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 752-53 (5th Cir. 1998)(internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Agholor has not demonstrated that this court should
re-examine his argument. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.