Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rachel Lee MEYER, a/k/a Juliet Frances Jones, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-07
Citations: 268 F. App'x 688
Docket Number: No. 05-50847
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Rachel Lee MEYER, a/k/a Juliet Frances Jones, Defendant— Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 268
Pages: 688–689

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Rachel Lee MEYER, a/k/a Juliet Frances Jones, Defendant— Appellant.
No. 05-50847.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 3, 2008 .
Filed March 7, 2008.
April Anita Christine, Esq., Becky S. Walker, Esq., USLA — Office of The U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kyle Gee, Esq., Henrikson & Gee, Karyn H. Bucur, Esq., Oakland, CA, Karyn H. Bucur Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA Rachel Lee Meyer FCIP — Federal Correctional Institution, (Phoenix) Female Unit, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Meyer was jointly tried with Joseph Fabricant and they separately appealed. We reversed Fabricant's convictions due to a Confrontation Clause violation. See United States v. Fabricant, 240 Fed.Appx. 244 (9th Cir.2007). Meyer raises the same issue on appeal. Under the law of the case doctrine, we are bound by our previous ruling. See United States v. Schaff, 948 F.2d 501, 506 (9th Cir.1991) ("We have previously found the law of the case doctrine to be applicable when the appeal of one co-defendant is decided prior to the appeal of the other co-defendant, if both were convicted at the same trial.") (citing United States v. Tierney, 448 F.2d 37, 39 (9th Cir.1971)).
Accordingly, we REVERSE Meyer's convictions and VACATE her sentence.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.