United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Delgario Lemos-mendoza, Defendant-appellant, 19 F.3d 31 (9th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 19 F.3d 31 (9th Cir. 1994) Submitted Feb. 22, 1994. *Decided Feb. 25, 1994

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Delgario Lemos-Mendoza appeals his conviction following jury trial for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1), 846. Lemos-Mendoza contends the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of cocaine discovered in the vehicle he was driving because the government failed to prove he gave valid consent for the search. The government counters that our decision in a co-defendant's appeal is law of the case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

The doctrine of law of the case "precludes a court from re-examining issues previously decided by the same court," and is applicable to co-defendants convicted at the same trial when the appeal of one co-defendant is decided prior to the appeal of another co-defendant. United States v. Schaff, 948 F.2d 501, 506 (9th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Tierney, 448 F.2d 37, 39 (9th Cir. 1971) (law of case established on appeal by first defendant applied to suppression issue raised in separate appeal by codefendant).

Lemos-Mendoza and co-defendant Baltazar Garcia Lua were jointly tried. On appeal, Lua raised virtually identical arguments as Lemos-Mendoza raises here regarding the issue of consent to search. We rejected those arguments, holding that " [t]he district court did not err by finding that [Lemos-]Mendoza's consent was voluntary, and thus denying the motion to suppress." See United States v. Lua, No. 89-30124, unpublished memorandum disposition (9th Cir. May 20, 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 608 (1991). This holding is the law of the case and governs our decision here. See Schaff, 948 F.2d at 506; Tierney, 448 F.2d at 39.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.