Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04171/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04171-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Daye Storer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4171

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Donald Daye Storer, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 4, 2006

Filed: October 5, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After we remanded for resentencing in United States v. Storer, 413 F.3d 918,

920 (8th Cir. 2005) (Storer I), the District Court1

 sentenced Donald Daye Storer to 120

months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. Storer appeals, arguing that the

District Court erred when--following our decision in Storer I--it concluded that

Storer’s prior state offense subjected him to a 10-year statutory minimum sentence

under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2) (2006). Storer asks us to review our decision in Storer

I. After careful review of the record, we conclude that this appeal is governed by the

Appellate Case: 05-4171 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2006 Entry ID: 2096476
-2-

law-of-the-case doctrine, and that Storer fails to assert any ground which would allow

him to relitigate a legal question decided against him in an earlier appeal. See United

States v. Bartsh, 69 F.3d 864, 866 (8th Cir. 1995) (doctrine ordinarily requires trial

court to follow decision of appellate court with respect to all issues addressed by that

opinion); United States v. Callaway, 972 F.2d 904, 905 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)

(under doctrine, appeals court will not review claim which was decided in prior

appeal, unless substantially different evidence is introduced or prior decision is clearly

erroneous and works manifest injustice). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4171 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2006 Entry ID: 2096476