FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ANUARY 19, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1056 6 Non-Argum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00348 -CR- J-32-MCR UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us WAYNE AN THONY MOORE, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J an ua ry19, 200 7) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BA RKE T T and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

W ay ne Anthony

Moore challenges his sentence and argues that the district co urt e rr ed

w he n it ( 1) c la ssi fi ed

him a s ac ar ee r of

fe nde r an d ( 2) be lie ve d th at it la ck ed dis cr et ionto de part

downw ar d. B ec au se Mo or e’ s arg um en ts are barr ed by the law of the case, we aff irm his sentence. I. BACKG ROUND Moo re w as c onvi ct ed

of dis tr ibutio n and p oss es sio n w ithint en t t o di str ibute crac k cocaine. 18 U. S. C. § 841 (a)( 1), ( b)(1)(B ). Moore appealed his sentence, w hic h w as im

pose d un de r the m an dator y S en te nc ing G uid el ine s invio latio n of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S . 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (200 5), and we r em anded fo r re se nte nc ing und er

the a dvi sor

y G uid el ine s. U nit ed

S tate s v. Mo or e, N o. 04- 1623 7 (11th Cir. July

20, 2005). O n rem and, the presentence investig ation report (P SI ) re co m

m en de d aba se of

fe nse le ve l of

28 and a tw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t f or usi ng a m ino r in the of

fe nse . B ec au se Mo or e ha d at l ea st tw o pr ior c onvi ct ion s f

or felonies invo lving a cr im e of violence or a controlled substance offense, the PSI cl as si fie d M oo re as a care er o ffen de r an d s etth e to ta l o ffen se lev el at 3 7. U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1. Mo or e’ s c ri m ina l hi sto ry c at eg or y w as V I, and the r es ult ing Guidelines range w as 360 m onth s to life. A t the r es en te nc ing he ar ing , Mo or e re fe rr ed to his arg um en ts f

ro m the f ir st se nte nc ing , in w hic h he ha d ob j ec te d to the c ar ee r of

fe nde r enhanc em en t and3

ar gue d th at

his c ri m ina l hi sto ry

c at eg or y ove rr ep re se nte d th e se ri ousn es s of his cr im ina l hi sto ry , and r eque ste d ase nte nc e of 140 m onths. T he c ourt r ea ff irm ed it s re j ec tio n of Mo or e’ s arg um en ts f

ro m the f ir st s en te nc ing and, a ft er

dis cu ssi ng the se ct ion355 3( a) se nte nc ing f ac tor s, im pose d ase nte nc e of

262 m onths. Moo re arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

w he n it c la ssi fi ed

Mo or e as a care er off ender. W e re

j ected this argum ent in Moore’ s first appeal and held that the c ar ee r of

fe nde r enhanc em en t w as not c onst itutio na l e rr or , be ca use pr ior convictio ns need notbe proved to a j ury bey ond a reasonable doub t. A lm endarezTorr es v. United States, 523 U. S. 224, 247, 118 S. Ct. 1219 , 1232-33 (1997 ); Bo oke r, 543 U . S. a t 24 4, 125 S . Ct . a t 75 6; Unit ed S tate s v. O rd

uno- Mi re le s, 405 F. 3d 9 60, 962 -6 3 ( 11th C ir . ), c er t. de nie d, 126 S . Ct . 233 ( 2005 ). T he lawof the cas e b ars ou r rec on si de rat io n o f th is is su e. See Al ph am ed , Inc . v. B. Braun Med ., In c., 36 7 F .3d12 80 , 12 86 n.3 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Moo re a lso arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr one ousl y be lie ve d it

la ck ed the autho ri ty to gr an t a

downw ar d de part

ur e. S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. W eb b, 139 F . 3d 1390 , 139 4- 96 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) . B ec au se Mo or e did not r ai se thi s is sue in his f

ir st appeal, the law of the case a lso bars our consi deration of this iss ue. United States v. E scobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556 , 1560 (11th Cir. 1997). AFFIRMED.