UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4349
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALFONZO TAFT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:05-cr-00087-BO-1)
Submitted: October 20, 2008 Decided: November 10, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Long, POYNER & SPRUILL LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney,
Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alfonzo Taft pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2006). The district court declined to sentence Taft under the
Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006),
finding he lacked the requisite three prior convictions for
serious drug offenses. The Government appealed, challenging the
district court’s decision not to designate Taft an armed career
criminal. Agreeing with the Government and finding Taft did
have the requisite three prior convictions, this court vacated
Taft’s sentence and remanded the case to the district court for
resentencing in conformity with the ACCA. United States v.
Taft, 250 F. App’x 581, 582 (4th Cir. 2007) (No. 06-5267) (“Taft
I”).
On remand for resentencing, Taft renewed his objection
to the armed career criminal designation, asserting two of his
prior convictions were not for separate offenses. The district
court overruled Taft’s objection and sentenced him to 180
months’ imprisonment, the statutory mandatory minimum sentence.
Taft appeals the 180-month sentence imposed on remand.
In this appeal, Taft challenges his armed career
criminal designation on the ground that he did not have three
prior convictions for separate serious drug offenses. The
Government asserts that Taft’s claim is foreclosed by the
2
decision in Taft I. We agree with the Government. In Taft I,
we held the district court should have designated Taft an armed
career criminal, and remanded the case for resentencing in
accordance with that conclusion. Taft I, 250 F. App’x 582.
Thus, we find Taft’s claim is barred by the law of the case
doctrine and that none of the exceptions to the doctrine apply.
See United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999)
(discussing doctrine and exceptions thereto); Sejman v. Warner-
Lambert Co., 845 F.2d 66, 69 (4th Cir. 1988).
Accordingly, we affirm Taft’s sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3