F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT N ovembe r 6, 20 06 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 06- 1093 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 04-80044 -CR- DMM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us HAROLD TOD D, JR., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(N ove m be r 6, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BL A CK and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

D ef en dant- Appe llant H ar old T odd, Jr . appe al s hi s 20 0- m onth se nte nc e fo r po ss es si on of afir earm

by a con vi ct edfel on , 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 9 24 (e). N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r

h a s b e e ns h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. The district court sentenced T odd u nder the Ar m ed Care er C rim inal Act (“ ACC A” ), 18 U. S. C. § 924 (e)( 1), which provid es a m andatory m inim um sentence of 15 y ears ’ im

pr is on m en t fo r a d efen da ntwho is co nv ic te d u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 922( g) (1 ) an d who h as thr ee e ar lie r co nvi ct ion s f or vio le nt f el oni es or se ri ous dr

ug offenses. Todd also rece ived an arm ed car eer crim inal enhancem ent under U. S. S. G. § 4B1.4(b)(3)( A) . The district court deter m ined that Todd’ s Guidelines im pr iso nm en t r an ge w as 262 to 327 m onths; and the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed him to 2 62 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t. T odd ap pe al ed

his c onvi ct ionand s en te nc e, arg uin g, am ong oth er thi ngs, that un de r the S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n inU nit ed S tate s v. Bo oke r, 125 S . Ct . 738 (2 005) , the dis tr ic t c ourt vi olate d hi s F if th and S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts whe n it en ha nc edhi s s en te nc e u nd er t he ACCA an d i ts co rres po nd in g Gu id el in e, U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .4 . We r ej ec t edTo d d ’s ar g u m en tan dex p l ai n edth atth e S up re m e C o u rt ’s decision in Alm endarez- Torr es v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998) -- which de te rm ine d th at

the gov er

nm en t ne ed

not a lle ge in anind ic tm en t, nor pr ove bey ond a reasonable doub t, that a defendant had a prior conviction for a district3

court to use that conv iction to enhance a sentence -- rem ained goodlawafter Bo oke r. A lth oughw e af fi rm ed T odd’ s c onvi ct ion , w e va cate d hi s se nte nc e an d rem anded for rese ntencing “ consist ent with the rem edial holdi ng of Booker” because the district court err ed in sentencing Todd under a m andatory Guidelines sy stem . See United States v. Todd, 157 Fed. Appx. 108, 111-12 (11th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S.C t. 1414 (2006 ). O n r em an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt r es en te nc ed T odd to 2 00 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t. T odd ap pe al s th is s en te nc e; and f or the se co nd t im e be fo re us, he argues that his Fifth and Sixth Am endm ent rights were violated when the district court sentenced him

as an ar m ed car eer crim inal based on p rior convictions that were n otall eg edin hi s i nd ic tm en t o r pr ov edto a jury bey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Todd concedes that we previouslydeterm ined that it was not error f or the district co urt t o se nte nc e him

und er the A CC A ; but he a sse rt s th at he r ai se s th is i ssu e ag ai n to pr es er

ve it f or pos sib le r ev ie wby

the S upr em e Co urt. The law- of-the-ca se doctrine precludes reviewof T odd’s ar gum ent for a se co nd t im e in the ins tant a ppe al . S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. E sc obar- U rr eg o, 110 F . 3d 1556 , 1560 (11th Cir. 1997) (explaining that, under the law -of-the-c ase doctrine, “ani s s u e d e c i d e da to n e s t a g e o f th e c a s e i s b i n d i n g a tl a t e r s t a g e s o f th e s a me ca se ”) ; L uc ke y

v. Mi lle r, 929 F . 2d 6 18, 621 ( 11th C ir . 199 1) ( “ A dhe re nc e to theThe law -of- the-c ase doc trine bar s rec onsideration of a n issue we pr eviously

decide d unless (1) 1 new e vidence that is substantially differ ent is prese nted; (2) c ontrolling a uth o rity has made a contr ary de c isi on of the law a pp lic a ble to s uc h is su e s; o r ( 3) the de c isi on wa s c le arl y

e rr on e ou s a

nd wo uld work a manifest injusti ce. See Escobar -Urr eg o, 110 F.3d at 1561. None of the se exceptions applies here . 4 law of the case dec rees that the f indin gs of fact and conclus ions o f lawby an ap p e l l a t e c o u rtar e g e n e r a l l y b i n d i n g i na l l s ub s e qu e n tp r o c e e d i n g s i nth e s a me cas e in th e tr ia l co ur t o r on a la te r ap pe al .”) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Sti ll we 1 repeat that, because the Suprem e Court has not explicitlyoverruled A lm en dare z- T or

re s, w e co nti nue to fo llo wthat de ci sio n. S ee U nit ed S tate s v. Mar ti ne z, 43 4 F .3d13 18 , 13 23 (11 th Cir .), cert . den ie d, 1 26 S.Ct . 29 46 (20 06 ). AFFIR MED.