UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 98-30085
USDC No. 94-CR-50068-5
(Summary Calendar)
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
REGINALD D. WILSON,
also known as Reg,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
November 19, 1998
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Reginald Wilson appeals the sentence he received after his
case was remanded for resentencing. He contends that the district
court erred in enhancing his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1)
because, “[t]here was no evidence that [he] ever carried a weapon
during a drug transaction or around a drug transaction.” He also
challenges the quantity and type of drugs attributable to him for
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
sentencing purposes and the district court's refusal to grant a
downward departure based on his “model prison record.”
Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities
convinces us that the district court committed no reversible error.
We review the district court's application of the Sentencing
Guidelines de novo and the factual findings for clear error. See
United States v. Dixon, 132 F.3d 192, 201 (5th Cir. 1997), cert.
denied, )) U.S. )), 118 S. Ct. 1581, 140 L. Ed. 2d 796 (1998). The
district court did not clearly err when it found that Wilson
possessed a firearm during a drug trafficking offense and enhanced
Wilson's sentence under § 2D1.1(b)(1). See Dixon, 132 F.3d at 202
(finding no clear error where evidence indicated defendant
possessed firearm and possession of firearm by coconspirator
reasonably foreseeable). Wilson's challenge to the quantity and
type of drugs attributable to him for sentencing purposes is barred
by the law of the case doctrine and is beyond the scope of remand.
See United States v. Marmolejo, 139 F.3d 528, 530-31 (5th Cir.
1998)(holding that resentencing court on remand may only decide the
issues directed by appeals court), petition for cert. filed, ))
U.S.L.W. )) (U.S. Jul. 20, 1998)(No. 98-5372); Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
v. Traillour Oil Co., 987 F.2d 1138, 1150 (5th Cir. 1993)(“The 'law
of the case' doctrine generally precludes the reexamination of
issues decided on appeal, either by the district court on remand or
by the appellate court itself on subsequent appeal.”).
Additionally, we do not address Wilson's challenge to the district
court's refusal to depart downwardly because this issue is beyond
-2-
the scope of remand. See Marmolejo, 139 F.3d at 530-31.
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
-3-