Opinion ID: 67316
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: On remand, we determined that the district court “had the authority to consider the merits of those claims.” Instead of considering the merits of 4 No. 08-40817 Antonelli’s claims, the district court ruled that “those claims” constituted a collateral attack on the original conviction, which Antonelli could not challenge. However, the district court did not consider the merits of the claims. Under the law of the case doctrine, our prior decision in this matter is binding on this panel, as well as the district court. Fuhrman v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 893, 896 (5th Cir. 2006).2 “Under this doctrine, a prior decision will be followed without re-examination unless, inter alia, ‘there has been an intervening change of law by a controlling authority.’” Pondexter v. Quarterman, 537 F.3d 511, 523 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Agofsky, 516 F.3d 280, 283 (5th Cir. 2008)). There has been no such intervening change of law.3 The Government offers no arguments in response to Antonelli’s contention that the district court did not follow our mandate and make the determinations required by our prior opinion, and no reason for this failure is apparent from the record. Accordingly, to the extent Antonelli challenges the effect of his 1997 conviction on his outstanding parole sentence, we again remand this case to the district court with instructions to make factual findings and appropriate legal conclusions based on those findings as to the merits of Antonelli’s claims asserted in his § 2241 petition. These determinations are not for the purpose of 2 “The law of the case doctrine provides that ‘an issue of law or fact decided on appeal may not be reexamined either by the district court on remand or by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal.’” Fuhrman, 442 F.3d at 896 (quoting United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 752 (5th Cir. 1998)). Because none of the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine apply here, the mandate rule required the district court on remand to “‘implement both the letter and the spirit of [our prior] mandate.’” Id. at 897 (quoting Becerra, 155 F.3d at 753). The district court was not free to “disregard the ‘explicit directives’ of [this] [C]ourt.” Id. (quoting Becerra, 155 F.3d at 753). 3 In objecting to the report and recommendation, Antonelli argued that he was entitled to merits review under Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (2001), and Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (2001). We need not address these arguments here because the same result is required under the law of the case doctrine. Moreover, given that those cases were decided prior to the 2005 remand order issued in this case, it is clear that they do not constitute an intervening change of law, and in any event, we must assume that the prior panel took them into account. 5 No. 08-40817 declaring the 1997 conviction invalid for all purposes but rather for the limited purpose of determining whether the 1997 conviction requires the forfeiture of nineteen months of “street time,” as determined by the Parole Commission.