FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

July 31, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_____________________________

No. 07-11303

Non Argument Calendar

_____________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-14002-CR-KMM

UNITED STATES OFAMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHANE JOSEPH COFFINDAFFER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________________________

(July 31, 2008)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
 The procedural history of this case is recited in the prior panel opinion. See id., No. 05-13152, 1

manuscript op. at 2, n.1. 

 These arguments include (1) whether the district court violated the Sixth Amendment by holding 2

Coffindaffer accountable for a higher drug quantity than that authorized by the jury’s verdict, (2)

whether the Guidelines range correctly was calculated, and (3) whether the sentencing disparity

between Coffindaffer’s sentence and that of a codefendant rendered his sentence vindictive.

2

Defendant-Appellant Shane Joseph Coffindaffer appeals his 180-month

concurrent sentences imposed for conspiring and attempting to manufacture at

least 5 but less than 50 grams of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. No

reversible error has been shown; we affirm. 

Coffindaffer previously appealed his sentence; in that appeal, the panel

rejected Coffindaffer’s many sentencing arguments but remanded the case for

resentencing because the district court had not adequately articulated its reasons

for the given sentence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1). United States v.

Coffindaffer, No. 05-13152 (11th Cir. Nov. 13, 2006) (unpub.). This case is back 1

on appeal after remand. 

On appeal, Coffindaffer raises the identical arguments he raised in his

previous appeal that we already have rejected. Thus, the law-of-the-case doctrine 2

precludes us from addressing Coffindaffer’s claims. 

Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, the parties may not relitigate; and we

may not reconsider, issues that were decided in an earlier appeal of the same case. 
 While Coffindaffer presently argues that his sentence is unreasonable based on the sentencing 3

disparity between him and his codefendant, the previous panel already addressed the disparity and

determined that it was not vindictive. See Coffindaffer, No. 05-13152, manuscript op. at 3-5. To

the extent Coffindaffer squarely has raised a reasonableness argument in this appeal, we conclude

that he has not carried his burden in showing that his 180-month sentence, which is within the

Guidelines range, is unreasonable. See United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005)

(the party challenging the sentence bears the burden of showing that it is unreasonable in the light

of both the record and the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); “ordinarily we would expect a sentence

within the Guidelines range to be reasonable”). In addition, Coffindaffer’s sentence was far less than

the 40-year statutory maximum. See United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1246 (11th Cir.

3

See United States v. Jordan, 429 F.3d 1032, 1035 (11th Cir. 2005). The law-ofthe-case doctrine may be overcome when substantially different evidence is

produced, controlling authority has changed, or the prior decision was clearly

erroneous and application of it would result in manifest injustice. Jackson v. State

of Alabama State Tenure Comm’n, 405 F.3d 1276, 1283 (11th Cir. 2005). Here,

Coffindaffer does not argue that an exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine

applies and, in fact, concedes that he raised these issues in his first appeal; he also

does not argue that the district court failed to comply with the remand order. See

United States v. Tamayo, 80 F.3d 1514, 1520 (11th Cir. 1996) (explaining that the

mandate rule obligates district courts to adhere to the dictates of the appellate

court’s opinion and not assert jurisdiction over matters that are outside the scope

of the mandate).

Accordingly, we affirm Coffindaffer’s sentence without addressing the

merits of his present appellate arguments.3
2005) (comparing, as one indication of reasonableness, the actual prison term imposed against the

statutory maximum). On remand, the district court considered sufficiently the section 3553(a)

factors and arguments of the parties, including Coffindaffer’s disparity argument. See United States

v. Rita, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69 (2007) (a lengthy explanation is not necessarily required when a

judge decides to follow the Guidelines in a particular case, especially where a sentencing judge has

listened to the arguments of the parties, considered the supporting evidence, and was aware of the

special conditions of the defendant). 

4

AFFIRMED.