United States v. John Galatolo

Case: 12-12588 Date Filed: 04/25/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12588
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:89-cr-00362-MGC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN GALATOLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 25, 2013)
Before BARKETT, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
John Galatolo appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se motion to
correct an illegal sentence, pursuant to former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
Case: 12-12588 Date Filed: 04/25/2013 Page: 2 of 4
35(a). 1 “ Mr. Galatolo’s Rule 35 motion challenges a mandatory five-year
consecutive sentence he received for a conviction of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Mr. Galatolo was convicted in 1990 of numerous offenses related to drug-
trafficking, including a conviction under § 924(c) for possessing a firearm in
furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. His convictions were based on events that
occurred in September 1986. In 2008, Mr. Galatolo filed his first Rule 35(a)
motion, which claimed that his § 924(c) conviction was illegal because the version
of § 924(c) in effect when he committed his offense did not prohibit the possession
of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The district court denied
the motion and we affirmed, stating that
Galatolo is correct that he possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime before it was a crime to do so. However, for
purposes of Rule 35(a), Galatolo may only challenge the legality of
his sentence and not his underlying conviction. Therefore, as a matter
of law, Galatolo’s conviction must be treated as valid. Because a
defendant who is convicted under § 924(c)(1)(A) must be sentenced to
at least 5 years’ imprisonment, Galatolo’s 60-month sentence is not
illegal.
United States v. Galatolo, 361 F.App’x. 29, 30 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2010).
In his current Rule 35(a) motion, Mr. Galatolo argues that the district court
erroneously imposed a mandatory five-year sentence, to run consecutive with his
other sentences, by applying a version of § 924(c) that did not become effective
1
Former Rule 35(a) provided that “[t]he court may correct an illegal sentence at any
time” and it remains applicable to sentences committed prior to November 1, 1987. United
States v. Jackson, 923 F.2d 1494, 1496 n.1 (11th Cir. 1991).
2
Case: 12-12588 Date Filed: 04/25/2013 Page: 3 of 4
until November 1986. He contends that he should have been sentenced under the
version of § 924(c) in effect in September 1986, which would have produced a
sentence of imprisonment of one to ten years to run concurrently with his other
sentences. The district court summarily denied the motion.
Under the law of the case doctrine, both district courts and appellate courts
are generally bound by a prior appellate decision in the same case.” Thomas v.
United States, 572 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009). However, we have
recognized three exceptions to the law-of-the-case doctrine: “(1) the evidence on a
subsequent trial was substantially different, (2) controlling authority has since
made a contrary decision of the law applicable to the issue, or (3) the previous
decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Westbrook
v. Zant, 743 F.2d 764, 768-69 (11th Cir. 1984).
As our previous decision on Mr. Galatolo’s 2008 Rule 35(a) motion held
that his sentence under § 924(c)(1)(A) was not illegal, our review of his current
Rule 35(a) motion is governed by the law of the case doctrine. None of the
exceptions to the law of the case doctrine apply here. Contrary to Mr. Galatolo’s
argument, the version of § 924(c) in effect at the time he committed the underlying
offense mandated a five-year consecutive sentence upon for a § 924(c) conviction.
See Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, tit. II, § 1005,
98 Stat. 1837, 2138 (1984). Our previous ruling on Mr. Galatolo’s original Rule
3
Case: 12-12588 Date Filed: 04/25/2013 Page: 4 of 4
35(a) was therefore not clearly erroneous. As a result, the resolution of Mr.
Galatolo’s Rule 35(a) motion is controlled by the law-of-the-case doctrine and the
district court did not err in denying his current Rule 35(a) motion.
AFFIRMED.
4