IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-10443
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DEREK GLEN ADKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:95-CV-2104-D
- - - - - - - - - -
February 21, 1997
Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Derek Glen Adkins, #24400-077, filed a motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct a sentence by a person in federal custody under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 asserting that the district court erred in
accepting his guilty plea prior to determining his exact
sentence, that his counsel was ineffective for giving him
incorrect information with respect to the length of his sentence,
and that the Government had breached the plea agreement. Under
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-10443
- 2 -
the law of the case doctrine, neither the district court on
remand nor the appellate court on a subsequent appeal may
reexamine the issues decided previously on appeal. Chevron
U.S.A., Inc. v. Traillour Oil Co., 987 F.2d 1138, 1150 (5th Cir.
1993); United States v. Singleton, 49 F.3d 129, 134 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 324 (1995). Issues decided on the
previous appeal, either expressly or by necessary implication,
are binding on remand and on any subsequent appeal. Id.
In the direct appeal of this conviction, this court held
that the district court did not err in accepting the guilty plea
because Adkins’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. United
States v. Adkins, No. 94-10120 (5th Cir. Dec. 28, 1994)
(unpublished).
The Government did not breach the agreement not to seek
enhancement for prior drug offenses. Application of the career
offender provisions of the guidelines is not the same as seeking
an increase in the statutory range of punishment that an
enhancement entails. Id.
The claim that his counsel was ineffective for inducing
Adkins to plead guilty with a prediction of his sentence is
without merit because Adkins has shown no prejudice. See Hill v.
Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57-59 (1985).
AFFIRMED.