Opinion ID: 203924
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dangerous Weapons Departure

Text: Wallace argues that his use of a dangerous weapon during the robbery was an improper basis for an upward departure because his use of that weapon, the TEC-9, was already accounted for by various other Guidelines provisions. The application of the subsequent appellate panel branch of the law of the case doctrine to this claim is straightforward. We have already held that appellant's use of a dangerous weapon was a valid basis for the upward departure, 461 F.3d at 36, and Wallace cannot meet the heavy burden required to invoke an exception under the law of the case doctrine. He cites no newly discovered evidence or intervening legal authority that requires us to reconsider, and there can be no credible claim that our failure to do so would work a manifest injustice in this case. As a general matter, we have long held that double-counting is less sinister than the name implies. United States v. McCarty, 475 F.3d 39, 46 (1st Cir.2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted). This is because two (or more) guidelines will often rely on the same underlying facts, although accounting for different sentencing concerns. Id. (citing Wallace, 461 F.3d at 36). Wallace cannot cite any Guidelines that explicitly prohibit the double-counting he alleges here, and the other enhancements he cites clearly account[] for different sentencing concerns. McCarty, 475 F.3d at 46. Therefore, this claim is barred by the law of the case doctrine.