United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued May 29, 2007

Decided August 17, 2007

Before

Hon. William J. Bauer, Circuit Judge

Hon. Diane P. Wood, Circuit Judge

Hon. Ann Claire Williams, Circuit Judge

Nos. 06-1884 and 06-2870

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KEVIN REED and ANTOINE HILL,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District

Court for the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 02 CR 236

Elaine E. Bucklo, 

Judge.

O R D E R

This is the second effort by Kevin Reed and Antoine Hill to obtain relief from their

sentences for drug dealing. In their first appeal, we affirmed their convictions and

remanded for re-sentencing in accordance with United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d

471, 481 (7th Cir. 2005). At their re-sentencing, the defendants raised certain

objections to the Guideline calculations for the first time. The district court

determined that the “law of the case” prevented it from revisiting the Guideline

determination and, after analyzing the § 3553(a) factors, sentenced Hill to 226 months’

imprisonment and Reed to 300 months’ imprisonment. Defendants appeal their

sentences, and we affirm. 

In December 2000, the FBI and the Joliet Police Department, together with

several other agencies, conducted a narcotics investigation into a drug ring operating

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
Nos. 06-1884 and 06-2870 Page 2

in Joliet, Illinois. As a result of the investigation, Reed and Hill were charged with,

among other things, conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute

in excess of five kilograms of cocaine and in excess of 50 grams of cocaine base. Reed,

who was the central figure in the conspiracy, pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge.

Hill was convicted of conspiracy and two counts of using a telephone to facilitate the

conspiracy but was acquitted of a substantive count of possession with the intent to

distribute in excess of 500 grams of cocaine. 

In their first appeal, Hill and Reed raised several issues regarding their sentences.

Hill claimed that his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was violated because his

sentence was based, in part, upon facts found by the judge rather than the jury. Reed

claimed that the district court improperly determined that the government’s proffer

letter encompassed his entire cooperation agreement and the district court failed to

remedy the prosecutor’s breached promise to seek a downward departure in his

sentence in exchange for his cooperation. Their final challenge, that their sentences

violated Booker, was successful. We remanded the case for re-sentencing in accordance

with Paladino. 

At their re-sentencing, Hill and Reed asserted new challenges to their sentences by

claiming that the district court improperly calculated their criminal history categories.

Hill also claimed that the district court improperly calculated his offense level. The

district court rejected defendants’ arguments, determining that the “law of the case”

prevented it from recalculating the Guideline range. Defendants timely filed this

appeal. Reed’s attorney has moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), because he cannot discern any

nonfrivolous ground for appeal. We invited Reed to respond to counsel’s motion, see

Cir. R. 51(b), and he has done so. Thus, in regard to Reed, we confine our review of the

record to the potential issues raised in Reed’s attorney’s facially-adequate brief and

Reed’s Rule 51(b) response.

We review de novo whether an issue is the law of the case. See Moore v. Anderson,

222 F.3d 280, 283 (7th Cir. 2000). The law-of-the-case doctrine requires a district court

to confine its discussion to the issues remanded, and bars the district court from

addressing issues that could have been raised on appeal. See United States v. Morris,

259 F.3d 894, 898 (7th Cir. 2001). “[A]ny issue conclusively decided by this court on

the first appeal is not remanded.” United States v. Husband, 312 F.3d 247, 251 (7th

Cir. 2002). Additionally, the court’s silence on an issue implies that it is not available

for consideration on remand. Id.

In their original appeal, Hill and Reed failed to challenge the individual sentencing

calculations made by the district court. The law of the case prevented them from

raising these new issues at their re-sentencing because they were outside the scope of

the remand. See United States v. Buckley, 251 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2001) (rejecting
Nos. 06-1884 and 06-2870 Page 3

defendant’s argument that the district court erred by refusing to consider at sentencing

argument on remand which was not raised in the initial appeal), United States v.

Sumner, 325 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 2003) (same). The district court properly found that

it could not reevaluate the new issues. 

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.