United States v. Donald Daye Storer , 199 F. App'x 593 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-4171
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                 * Northern District of Iowa.
    *
    Donald Daye Storer,                      *     [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 4, 2006
    Filed: October 5, 2006
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    After we remanded for resentencing in United States v. Storer, 
    413 F.3d 918
    ,
    920 (8th Cir. 2005) (Storer I), the District Court1 sentenced Donald Daye Storer to 120
    months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. Storer appeals, arguing that the
    District Court erred when--following our decision in Storer I--it concluded that
    Storer’s prior state offense subjected him to a 10-year statutory minimum sentence
    under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2) (2006). Storer asks us to review our decision in Storer
    I. After careful review of the record, we conclude that this appeal is governed by the
    1
    The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
    District of Iowa.
    law-of-the-case doctrine, and that Storer fails to assert any ground which would allow
    him to relitigate a legal question decided against him in an earlier appeal. See United
    States v. Bartsh, 
    69 F.3d 864
    , 866 (8th Cir. 1995) (doctrine ordinarily requires trial
    court to follow decision of appellate court with respect to all issues addressed by that
    opinion); United States v. Callaway, 
    972 F.2d 904
    , 905 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)
    (under doctrine, appeals court will not review claim which was decided in prior
    appeal, unless substantially different evidence is introduced or prior decision is clearly
    erroneous and works manifest injustice). Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-4171

Citation Numbers: 199 F. App'x 593

Judges: Wollman, Bowman, Colloton

Filed Date: 10/5/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024