IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 17, 2009
No. 09-50322
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MARICELA HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:06-CR-901-3
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This court previously remanded this case for resentencing due to a
mathematical error in the district court’s drug quantity determination. See
United States v. Hernandez, 299 F. App’x 413, 414-416 (5th Cir. 2008). On
remand, the district court corrected the mathematical error and resentenced the
appellant, Maricela Hernandez, to 110 months of imprisonment on her jury
conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100
*
Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 09-50322
kilograms of marijuana. Hernandez now appeals from the district court’s
judgment upon remand, arguing that the district court erred by assessing an
extra 477 kilograms of marijuana because there is no evidence to connect her to
the activity described in Presentence Report (PSR) paragraphs 34-36 and
paragraph 39. She further argues that because she is being held accountable for
conduct by others in a jointly undertaken criminal activity, the district court
erred by failing to make particularized findings regarding the elements of
foreseeability and the scope of the agreement.
Hernandez is requesting that this court reexamine issues that were
previously addressed and rejected by this court in its remanding opinion. See
Hernandez, 299 F. App’x at 415-16. Hernandez’s arguments are therefore barred
by the law of the case doctrine. See United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 657
(5th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the mandate rule forecloses relitigation of
Hernandez’s arguments. See United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 320-21 (5th Cir.
2004). Exceptions to the law of the case doctrine and the mandate rule are not
applicable in this case. See id. at 320 n.3; Matthews, 312 F.3d at 657.
AFFIRMED.
2