T hi s orderand j udgm enti s notbinding prece dentexceptunderthe doctrinesof * law o f th e c a s e , res ju dica ta and col l aterales toppel . T he courtgeneral lydi s favor s the citati on of order s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an orderand j udgm entm aybe cited under the term s and conditi ons of 10th C ir . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e14,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. J ER RY LEE W I LLI A M S, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 3298 (D . K ansas) ( D . C t . N o . 0 3 - C R - 1 0 1 4 0 - J T M)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. J err yL ee W i l l i ams w as found gui l t yfol l ow i ng a j ur yt r i al of bei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) , and s ent ence d as an- 2-

a r me d c a r e e rc r i mi n a l t o 2 1 0 mo n t h s i mp r i s o n me n t . On d i r e c ta p p e a l , W i l l i a ms ra ise d se v e n iss u e s. W e a ffirm e d h is c o n v ictio n , b u t v a c a ted h is s e n ten c e d u e to the d istri ct co u rt ’s be li ef the U n it ed S tat es S en tenc ing G u idelines w ere m a n d a to ry. Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 0 3 F .3 d 1 1 8 8 , 1 1 9 9 -1 2 0 0 (1 0 th C ir .) ( Wi l l i am s I), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 1 7 8 (20 0 5 ). U p o n rem an d , the d istri ct co u rt i m pos ed the mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence — 180 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent

— under t he A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal A ct . 18 U . S. C . § 924( e) . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we AFF I RM . W i l l i ams r ai s es fouri s s ues on appea l : ( 1) i n Wi l l i am s I, t hi s C our tappl i ed an incorr ect st and ard i n revi ew i ng W i l l i am s’ request ed theoryof the defe nse instruction o n “fleeti n g p o sses sion ”; (2) the d istri ct co u rterred in g iving the ju ry a s uppl ement al i ns t ruct i on on t he i s s ue of W i l l i ams’ know i ng pos s es s i on of t he fi r earm ; ( 3) m er e movem entof a f i r earm fr om one s t at e t o anotherdoes not s at i s fyt he r equi r ementof §922( g) t hatt he fi r earm be pos s es s ed “i n oraffect i ng comm er ce” ; and ( 4) t he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n s ent enci ng W i l l i ams as an arm ed car eercr i m i nal . W i l l i ams admi t s hi s s econd a nd t hi r d i s s ues ar e the s ame as t hos e r ai s ed i n Wi l l i am s I, a n d t h u s t h e “ l a w o f t h e c a s e ” d o c t r i n e a p p l i e s . We concl ude hi s fi r s tand four t h i s s ues al s o m er el yr ei t er at e thos e r ai s ed i n Wi l l i a ms I. S ee Wil li a m s I, 403 F. 3d at1195, n. 7 & 1198. U ndert he l aw of t he ca s e doctr i ne, “w hen a c our tdeci des upon a rul e of l aw , t hatdeci s i on s houl d cont i nue t o govern t he s ame i s s ues i n s ubs equents t ages- 3-

of t he s ame cas e. ” A riz o n a v . C a lif o rn ia , 4 6 0 U . S . 6 0 5 , 6 1 8 (19 8 3 ). F u rt h er, “w h en a c ase is ap p ea led a n d rem an d ed , the d ec isi o n o f th e a p p ell ate c o u rt es t abl i s hes t he l aw of t he ca s e and or di nar i l yw i l l be fol l ow ed bybot h t he t r i al cour ton r emand and t he appe l l at e cour ti n anys ubs equentappea l . ” R o h r b a u g h v . C el otex C orp . , 53 F . 3d 11 81 , 11 83 (10t h C i r. 19 95 ). “T he law of the case d o c tr in e is in te n d e d to p re v e n t c o n tin u e d re -a rg u m e n t o f is s u e s a lr e a d yd e c id e d . .

. . ” Hu ffm a n v . Sa u l Ho ld in gs, L td . P ’sh ip , 262 F. 3d 1128, 1132 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T hi s C our thas r ecogni zed onl yt hr ee n a rro w e x c e p tio n s to th e d o c trin e : “( 1 ) w h e n th e e v id e n c e in a su b se q u e n t trial is s ubs t ant i al l ydi ffe r ent ; ( 2) w hen contr ol l i ng author i t yhas s ubs equent l ym ade a cont r arydeci s i on of t he l aw appl i cabl e t o s uch i s s ues ; or( 3) w hen t he dec i s i on w as cl ear l yerr oneous and w oul d w or k a mani fes ti nj us t i ce. ” McIlravy v. KerrMcG ee C oa lC orp . , 204 F. 3d 1031, 1035 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( i nt er nal quot at i ons and c ita tio n s o m itte d ). W illia m s d o e s n o t a rg u e th e s e e x c e p tio n s a n d ri g h tly so . N on e of these ci rcum st ances ex i st s here. W e decided all i ssues r ai sed i n thi s appea l i n Wi l l i am s I. T he law of the case do ct ri ne ap pli es. AF F I RMED . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge