F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT July 31, 20 08 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 07- 1130 3 Non A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 04-14002 -CR- KMM UNITED STAT ES OFAMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us SH AN E JO SE PH CO FFIND AF FE R, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 31 , 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H and D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:The proc edura l history of this case is recited in the prior panel opinion. See id., No. 05-13152, 1 manuscript op. at 2, n.1. These a rguments include (1) whether the district c ourt violated the Six th Amendment by holding 2 Coffindaff

er a ccounta

ble for a highe r drugquantity

than that authorized by

the jury ’s verdict, (2) wh e the r t he Gu ide lin e s r ang e c or

re c tly wa s c a lc ulate d, and

(3 ) whethe r th e se nte nc ingdis pa ri ty betwee n Coffindaff

er’ s sentence and that of a codef endant r ender ed his sentenc e vindictive. 2 D ef en dant- Appe llant S hane Jos ep h C of fi nda ff er appe al s hi s 18 0- m onth concurrent sentences im

posed for conspi ring and attem pting to m anufacture at le as t 5 bu t l es s t ha n 5 0 g ram s o f m et ha m ph et am in e, 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1, 8 46 . No
rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af firm . Coffindaffe r previously

appealed his sentence; in that appeal, the panel
re j ec te d C of

fi nda ff er ’ s m any se nte nc ing arg um en ts b ut r em an de d th e ca se f or re se nte nc ing be ca

use the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d no t a de quate ly art ic ulate d it s r ea sons fo r the giv ense nte nc e, in vio latio n of 18 U
. S. C. § 35 53( c) (1 ). U nit ed S tate s v. Coffindaffe r, No. 05-1315 2 (11th Cir. N ov. 13, 2006) (unpub .)
. T his case is back 1
on ap pe al aft er re m an d. O n a ppe al , Co ff

ind af fe r ra ise s th e ide nti ca l arg um en ts h e ra ise d inhis pr ev iou s a

ppe al that w e al re ady

have r ej ec te d. T hus, the law -o f- the -c as e doc tr ine 2 pr ecl ud es us fro m

ad dr es si ng Co ffi nd affe r’s cl ai m s. Und er t he law- of

-th e-ca se do ct rin e, th e p art ie s m ay no t re li ti ga te ; an d we
m ay no t re co ns id er, i ss ue s t ha t wer e d eci de d i n a n e arl ie r ap pe al of t he same case .Whil e Coffindaff er prese ntly argues that his sentence is unreasona ble base d on the sentenc ing 3 disparity betwee n him and his codefe ndant, t he previous panel alr eady addre ssed the disparity

and deter mined that it was not vindictive. See C offindaf fer , No. 05-13152, manuscript op. at 3- 5. To the extent Coffindaffe r squar ely has ra ised a re asonable ness ar gument in this appea l, we conc lude that he has not c arr ied his bur den in show ing that his 180- month se ntence , which is w ithin t he Guidelines ra

ng e, is unrea sonable. See United States v. Talley , 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (the party challeng ing the sentenc e bear s the burden of showing that it is unrea sonable in the light of both the re cord a

nd the fa ctors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); “ ordinarily we would expect a sente nce within the Guidelines rang e to be r easona ble”)
. In addition, Coff

indaffe r’s sentenc e was fa r less than the 40-y e ar

s tatuto r y maxim um. Se e U n it e d

St ate s v . Wi n in g e ar , 4 2 2 F . 3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 ( 1 1 th

Cir. 3 See United States v. Jordan, 429 F.3d 1032, 1035 (11th Cir. 2005). The law- ofthe -c as e doc tr ine m ay

be ove rc om e w he n su

bst an tia lly

dif fe re nt e vid en ce is pr oduc ed , c ontro lli ng a

uth or ity ha s c hange d, or

the pr ior de ci sio n w as c le ar ly
er ro ne ous an d a

ppl ic at ionof

it w oul d r es ult

in m an if es t i nj ust ic e. Ja ck son v. S tate of Ala bam a State Te nure Com

m ’ n, 405 F.3d 1276, 1283 (11th Cir. 2005). He re, Co ff ind af fe r doe s no t arg ue that an e xc ep tio n to the law -o f- the -c as e doc tr ine ap pli es and, in fa ct , c onc ed es that he r ai se d th es e iss ue s inhis f ir st a ppe al ; he a lso does not argue that the district court failed to com ply with the re m and order. See U nit ed S tate s v. T am ay o, 80 F
. 3d 1 514, 152 0 ( 11th C ir
. 199 6) ( expla ini ng tha t the
m an da te r ule obl igate s di str ic t c ourts t o a dhe re to the dic tate s of the appe llate co urt’ s op ini on and n ot a sse rt j ur isd ic tio n ov er

m atte rs that are out sid e the sc ope of the m andate). A cc or din gly , w e af

fi rm Co ff ind af fe r’ s se nte nc e w ith out

a ddr es sin g th e m er its of his pr es en t a

ppe llate arg um en ts. 32005) (c omparing , as one indication of rea sonablene ss, the actua l prison term imposed ag ainst the

statutory maxi mum). On rema

nd, the district court co n s i d ere d sufficie ntly the sec tion 3553(a) fac tors and arguments of the parties, includingCoffindaff er’ s disparity

argument. See United States v. Rita, 12 7 S.Ct . 2456, 2468-69 (2007) (a le ng thy explanation is notnece ssarily require d when a judge decide s to f

ollow the Guidelines in a

particula r ca se, espe cially

wher e a se ntencingjudge has listened to the arguments of the parties, considere d the supporting evidenc e, and was awa re of the specia l conditions of the defe ndant). 4 AFFIR MED.