Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41327/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41327-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jacob Matthew Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41327

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JACOB MATTHEW MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:11-CR-1381-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jacob Matthew Martinez pleaded guilty to one count of interfering with 

commerce by threats or violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). On 

remand, he was resentenced to 87 months of imprisonment, three years of 

supervised release, $223,627.40 in restitution, and a $100 special assessment.

As he did in his previous appeal, see United States v. Martinez, 614 F. 

App’x 165, 166 n.1 (5th Cir. 2015), Martinez contends that § 1951(a) is 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41327 Document: 00513776346 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2016
No. 15-41327

2

unconstitutional on its face and as applied to his case. He concedes that his 

arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent but seeks to preserve the issues 

for further review.

The appeal was stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor 

v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2074 (2016). Taylor has now been decided, and the 

Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance asserting 

that Martinez’s arguments remain foreclosed by circuit precedent. In the 

alternative, the Government requests an extension of time in which to file a 

brief on the merits.

“Generally, the law of the case doctrine precludes reexamination by the 

appellate court on a subsequent appeal of an issue of law or fact decided on a 

previous appeal.” United States v. Agofsky, 516 F.3d 280, 283 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Because we rejected Martinez’s challenges to the constitutionality of § 1951(a) 

in his previous appeal, see Martinez, 614 F. App’x at 166 n.1, and none of the 

exceptions to the law of the case doctrine apply, see Agofsky, 516 F.3d at 283, 

the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the 

alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the 

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-41327 Document: 00513776346 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2016