United States v. Peter Ayika ( 2014 )

Case: 14-50318 Document: 00512842848 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-50318
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 19, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
PETER VICTOR AYIKA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:09-CR-660-1
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Peter Victor Ayika appeals the district court’s order denying his motion
to dismiss his indictment pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
12(b)(3)(B) and his motions for summary disposition of his Rule 12(b)(3)(B)
motion. Ayika was convicted after a jury trial of drug offenses in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841. In his Rule 12(b)(3)(B) motion, Ayika argued that the
indictment was jurisdictionally defective because he was a licensed pharmacist
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 14-50318 Document: 00512842848 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2014
No. 14-50318
and that he therefore could not be prosecuted under § 841. The district court
determined that Ayika’s Rule 12(b)(3)(B) motion was untimely and
alternatively that it was precluded from considering his challenge to the
indictment because that issue was already rejected by this court on direct
appeal.
We need not address whether Ayika’s Rule 12(b)(3)(B) motion was timely
as the district court’s alternative ruling was correct. Although Ayika framed
his Rule 12(b)(3)(B) challenge to the indictment as a jurisdictional issue, it is
substantively the same as the challenge that he raised to his indictment on
direct appeal. Our rejection of that argument on direct appeal constitutes the
law of the case. See United States v. Lawrence, 179 F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir.
1999); United States v. Ayika, 542 F. App’x 344 (5th Cir. 2013). The district
court’s denial of Ayika’s Rule 12(b)(3)(B) motion and his motions for summary
disposition are AFFIRMED.
2