United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 22, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41832
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE BONILLA-MUNGIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:03-CR-431-ALL
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Bonilla-Mungia (Bonilla) again appeals his guilty plea
conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. In a prior opinion, we rejected
as foreclosed Bonilla’s claim that the felony and aggravated
felony provisions contained in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b) are
unconstitutional. Bonilla, 422 F.3d at 318-19 (citing
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998)).
We also rejected the Government’s argument that Bonilla had
waived his objections to his crime of violence enhancement, and,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-41832
-2-
after reviewing for plain error, we vacated Bonilla’s sentence
and remanded the case to the district court for re-sentencing.
Id. at 319-22. The district court re-sentenced Bonilla, and this
appeal followed.
Bonilla again challenges the constitutionality of
§ 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony convictions as sentencing
factors, but he concedes that this claim is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).
Neither party argues the effect of the previous panel’s decision,
but this court explicitly addressed this argument and held that
the claim was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See Bonilla, 422
F.3d at 318-19. Therefore, we should first consider whether
under the doctrine of the law of the case, Bonilla’s claim should
be heard a second time. See United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d
740, 752-753 (5th Cir. 1998).
The law of the case doctrine generally instructs that “a
prior decision of this court will be followed without
re-examination . . . unless (i) the evidence on a subsequent
trial was substantially different, (ii) controlling authority has
since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such
issues, or (iii) the decision was clearly erroneous and would
work a manifest injustice." Becerra, 155 F.3d at 752-53
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In this case, the previous panel squarely and explicitly
reached the issue that Bonilla now attempts to raise anew.
No. 05-41832
-3-
Bonilla, 422 F.3d at 318-19. None of the exceptions to the law
of the case doctrine are applicable to this case, and application
of the doctrine here would further the policy goals the doctrine
is generally meant to achieve. See Becerra, 155 F.3d at 752-53.
Accordingly, we decline to reconsider this court’s prior holding
under the doctrine of the law of the case.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.