Opinion ID: 57555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Antonio Allen

Text: Allen argues that the district court violated the law of the case doctrine by not following our last opinion in this case, United States v. Allen, 142 F. App’x 410 (11th Cir. 2005)(“Allen III”). “The law of the case doctrine, self-imposed by the courts, operates to create efficiency, finality and obedience within the judicial system.” United States v. 6 Tamayo, 80 F.3d 1514, 1520 (11th Cir. 1996). “An appellate decision binds all subsequent proceedings in the same case not only as to explicit rulings, but also as to issues decided necessarily by implication on the prior appeal.” Id. Accordingly, “[a] district court when acting under an appellate court’s mandate, cannot vary it, or examine it for any other purpose than execution; or give any other or further relief; or review it, even for apparent error, upon a matter decided on appeal; or intermeddle with it, further than to settle so much as has been remanded.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). Allen seizes upon one sentence from Allen III – “the district court cannot enhance Allen’s sentence for his involvement with cocaine base” – to support his argument that the district court could not include cocaine base in its Guidelines calculation. However, in Allen III, we repeatedly stated that the district court’s error was that it made factual findings regarding the type of cocaine under a mandatory, not advisory, Guidelines scheme. Here, the district court sentenced Allen under an advisory Guidelines standard and did not exceed the statutory maximum sentence based upon the quantity of cocaine powder. Allen also maintains that his 188-months’ sentence was unreasonable. As we noted above, we review post-Booker sentences for reasonableness. Talley, 431 F.3d at 785. We conclude that the district court’s sentence was reasonable. The district court correctly calculated that Allen was responsible for an amount of cocaine that created a base offense level of thirty-two and then enhanced his 7 sentence by two levels for possession of a firearm. With a criminal history category of I, the district court determined that Allen’s Guidelines range was 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment. The district court then sentenced Allen to 188 months, a sentence at the top of the Guidelines range. In support, the district court twice stated that it believed that Allen’s previous 235-month sentence was reasonable given his role in the offense, but still sentenced him within the Guidelines range. These comments implicate a number of the § 3553(a) factors, such as the nature of the offense and the need to provide just punishment, and Allen fails to show why his within-range sentence is unreasonable. AFFIRMED. 8