Case ID: f-appx_596/html/0034-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jason VALE, Defendant-Appellant, Christian Bros. Contracting Corp., a corporation, Defendant.
    
    No. 14-2526.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 4, 2015.
    Emily Berger, Charles S. Kleinberg, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.
    Jason Vale, pro se, Bellerose Manor, New York, for Appellant. •
    PRESENT: REENARAGGI, RICHARD C. WESLEY and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption as shown above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Jason Vale, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order denying reconsideration of his request for an order declaring that his federal conviction for three counts of criminal contempt, see 18 U.S.C. § 401(3), does not constitute a felony conviction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

The law of the case doctrine “forecloses reconsideration of issues that were decided — or that could have been decided — during prior proceedings” in the same case. United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 471 (2d Cir.2007). Pursuant to that doctrine, district courts may not alter an appellate ruling where the appellate court has already considered and rejected the basis for the relief sought. See DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266, 1271 (2d Cir.1994). Thus, a party may seek reconsideration in the district court of an order affirmed on appeal only if later events arise that were not previously considered by the appellate court. See id. at 1270. District courts, however, are also precluded from considering issues that could have been raised on a prior appeal, but were not. See United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d 1217, 1225 (2d Cir.2002).

Here, we previously held that Vale’s motion for a declaratory order regarding the nature of his criminal contempt conviction

did not present a live case or controversy because (1) any challenge to his sentence was moot, as he had already completed his terms of imprisonment and supervised release; and (2) the hypothetical denial of voting or gun owning privileges was not ripe because it depended upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.

United States v. Vale, 566 Fed.Appx. 56, 57 (2d Cir.2014) (summary order) (internal citations omitted). We concluded that “[t]he district court correctly declined to issue an advisory opinion as to whether Vale’s crime of conviction constituted a felony.” Id.

Vale’s subsequent reconsideration motion in the district court sought to fit within. an exception to the law of the case doctrine by asserting a changed circumstance, that is, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) had classified his offense as a felony and, as a result, debarred him. See 21 U.S.C. § 835a(a)(2) (providing that FDA “shall debar” individual who FDA finds “has been convicted of a felony under Federal law”). Vale, however, acknowledges that the FDA notified him of its intent to debar him in 2008, and the record reflects that his debarment became effective in 2010. Thus, Vale could have raised the issue in his prior appeal but did not, and the district court therefore could not consider it. See United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d at 1225. Moreover, the district court was correct that it was not the proper forum to challenge the FDA decision. See 21 U.S.C. § 335a(j)(1) (providing that FDA decisions must be challenged in “the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or ... the circuit in which the person resides, by filing in such court (within 60 days ...) a petition requesting that the decision be modified or set aside”).

We have considered Vale’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. We therefore AFFIRM the order of the district court.