Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01634/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01634-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Barajas-Perez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1634

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Jose Barajas-Perez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 21, 2006

Filed: March 27, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal following remand for resentencing, Jose BarajasPerez (Jose) challenges his sentence of 135 months imprisonment and 5 years

supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court1 at resentencing

violated the law of the case by reconsidering alleged false testimony Jose had given

at his nephew’s criminal trial in determining where to sentence Jose within the

advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-1634 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2006 Entry ID: 2025340
-2-

Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, once a court decides upon a rule of law, that

decision is usually binding at subsequent stages of the same case. See United States

v. Hively, 437 F.3d 752, 766 (8th Cir. 2006). We conclude that the district court did

not violate the law of the case when it sentenced Jose at the top of the Guidelines

range for having lied at his nephew’s trial, because such a finding is not necessarily

the same as the finding required to enhance for obstruction of justice. See U.S.S.G.

§ 3C1.1 comment. (n.1) (obstruction-of-justice adjustment applies if defendant’s

obstructive conduct occurred during course of investigation, prosecution, or

sentencing of defendant’s instant offense of conviction, and related to defendant’s

offense and any relevant conduct or to otherwise closely related case), (n.4) (nonexhaustive list of types of conduct to which adjustment applies). Moreover, the

finding that Jose lied was based on new evidence, i.e., evidence that could not have

been submitted until after Jose’s first sentencing hearing. See United States v. Palmer,

297 F.3d 760, 766 (8th Cir. 2002) (decision in prior appeal is followed in later

proceedings unless, inter alia, party introduces substantially different evidence), cert.

denied, 538 U.S. 937 (2003).

We have reviewed the resentencing record independently under Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1634 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2006 Entry ID: 2025340