[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
October 5, 2006
No. 06-10333 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-20585-CR-WMH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TORREY STYLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(October 5, 2006)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Torrey Styles appeals his 180-month sentence, imposed on remand,
following his conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e) for possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon. Originally sentenced as an armed career criminal
to 210 months imprisonment, Styles argued on appeal that the district court erred
by (1) applying the guidelines as mandatory; (2) sentencing him under the Armed
Carreer Criminal Act (“ACCA”) where the indictment did not include his prior
felony convictions; (3) finding that his prior convictions were violent felonies
where that characterization was neither pled in the indictment nor found by the
jury; (4) concluding that it did not have the authority to depart downward under
U.S.S.G. § 5K2.11; and (5) concluding that a prior conviction for carrying a
concealed firearm was a violent felony under the ACCA.
In United States v. Styles, 139 Fed. Appx. 249, 250 (11th Cir. 2005), we
held that Styles’ initial sentence was properly enhanced under ACCA on the basis
of prior convictions determined by the judge to be violent felonies. Id. at 250-52.
We remanded for resentencing, however, because the district court committed
statutory Booker error when it failed to recognize its authority to downward depart
under § 5K2.11. Id. at 252-53. On remand, the district court imposed a downward
variance, sentencing Styles to 180 months imprisonment.
Styles now argues that (1) his ACCA-enhanced sentence in excess of ten
years violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because his three prior felony
2
convictions were not charged in the indictment; (2) the ACCA enhancements to his
sentence violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because the indictment did not
charge and the jury did not find that his prior convictions arose out of violent
felonies; and (3) carrying a concealed firearm is not a violent felony.
The government argues that Styles’ claims are precluded by the law of the
case doctrine. Under that doctrine, “findings of fact and conclusions of law by an
appellate court are generally binding in all subsequent proceedings in the same
case in the trial court or on a later appeal.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
United States v. Bobo, 419 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2005). “While the ‘law of
the case’ doctrine is not an inexorable command,” it should apply “unless the
evidence on a subsequent trial was substantially different, controlling authority has
since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues, or the decision
was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” United States v.
Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556, 1561 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting White v. Murtha,
377 F.2d 428, 431-32 (5th Cir.1967)).
Upon careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record, we agree
with the government that the law of the case doctrine must apply here. All of the
issues presently raised by Styles were previously raised and considered in the
appeal of his prior, vacated sentence. Styles, 139 Fed. Appx. at 250-52. None of
3
the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine apply here: there has been no
intervening trial; Styles relies upon authority which existed at the time of the
original appeal; and Styles does not demonstrate that the decision below was
clearly erroneous, let alone a manifest injustice. Accordingly, Styles’ sentence is
AFFIRMED.
4