United States v. Grajales

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20163
Conference Calendar
__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE J. GRAJALES,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CR-H-91-211-2
- - - - - - - - - -
(October 19, 1995)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Grajales argues that the district court erroneously

believed that the "law of the case" acted as a "mandatory

prohibition" against reconsideration of its original sentencing

findings that Grajales was the leader/organizer of the drug-

dealing operation and possessed a firearm during the offense.

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 a

*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
 No. 95-20163
-2-

subsequent appeal. If an issue was decided
on appeal--either expressly or by necessary
implication--the determination will be
binding on remand and on any subsequent
appeal.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Traillour Oil Co., 987 F.2d 1138, 1150

(5th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). While, as Grajales points

out, the "law of the case" doctrine is not an inexorable command,

the doctrine is to be followed unless: 1) the evidence from a

subsequent trial was substantially different, 2) the decision was

clearly erroneous and would result in manifest injustice, or 3)

controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the

law applicable to such issues. Falcon v. General Tel. Co., 815

F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1987). The doctrine applies in both

criminal and civil cases. Paul v. United States, 734 F.2d 1064,

1066 (5th Cir. 1984). Grajales presents no arguments regarding

these factors.

This court already decided the above sentencing issues

against Grajales in his earlier appeal, United States v. Fierro,

38 F.3d 761, 774-75 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct.

1388 (1995), and none of the three exceptions to application of

the "law of the case" doctrine exist in this case. Moreover, the

district court's action in re-sentencing Grajales to life

imprisonment was clearly consistent with the narrow nature of

this court's mandate on remand. Accordingly, the district court

did not err in determining that the "law of the case" doctrine

precludes review of the sentencing issues.

AFFIRMED.