1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-2352

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Nebraska. * Tony Skannell, also known as Tomcat, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 26, 2008 Filed: June 30, 2008

___________ Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Tony Skannell challenges the 360-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed for a drug offense following re mand for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). We affirm.
After careful review, we conclude th at Skannell’s arguments regarding his career-offender status and the requirement s of 21 U.S.C. § 851 are foreclosed by our decision in his prior appeal. See United States v. Behler , 100 F.3d 632, 635 (8th Cir. 1996) (on remand, all issues decided by appellate court become law of case, and-2- sentencing court is bound to proceed withinscope of any limitations imposed on its function at resentenci ng by appellate court); United States v. Bartsh , 69 F.3d 864, 866 (8th Cir. 1995) (under law-of-case doctrine, decision in prior appeal is followed in later proceedings unless party introduces s ubstantially different evidence, or prior decision is clearly erroneous and works manifest injustice). Skannell also argues that, in resentencing him, the district court abused its discretion by giving too much weight to hi s criminal history while not adequately considering what would be a just punishm ent. This argument fails. Skannell’s extensive criminal history was a proper cons ideration, and we hold that his withinGuidelines-range prison sentence is reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (in determining particular sentence, court shall consider, inter alia, history and characteristics of defendant); Gall v. United States , 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (appellate court must review sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard regardless whether sentence imposed is inside or outside Guidelines range); Rita v. United States , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) (appr oving appellate presumpti on of reasonableness for sentences that reflect proper application of Guidelines); United States v. Harris , 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2007) (applying presumption of reasonableness), cert. denied , 128 S. Ct. 1263 (2008); United States v. Long Soldier , 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (reasonableness of sentence is reviewedfor abuse of discretion, which occurs if court fails to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or irre levant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors). Finally, we decline to address the merits of Skannell’s reply-brief argument regarding the “crack cocaine amendment” because that issu e is not properly before us. See United States v. King , 518 F.3d 571, 576 (8th Cir. 2008) (request for reduction of sentence in light of Guidelin es amendment must be decide d by district court in first instance). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________