USA v. Donald Daye Storer, No. 05-4171 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. This appeal is governed by the law-of-the-case doctrine and defendant has not established any basis for relitigating the legal questions decided in his prior appeal ( See. U.S. v. Storer, 413 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2005)).
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-4171 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Donald Daye Storer, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: October 4, 2006 Filed: October 5, 2006 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. After we remanded for resentencing in United States v. Storer, 413 F.3d 918, 920 (8th Cir. 2005) (Storer I), the District Court1 sentenced Donald Daye Storer to 120 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. Storer appeals, arguing that the District Court erred when--following our decision in Storer I--it concluded that Storer s prior state offense subjected him to a 10-year statutory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. ยง 2252A(b)(2) (2006). Storer asks us to review our decision in Storer I. After careful review of the record, we conclude that this appeal is governed by the 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. law-of-the-case doctrine, and that Storer fails to assert any ground which would allow him to relitigate a legal question decided against him in an earlier appeal. See United States v. Bartsh, 69 F.3d 864, 866 (8th Cir. 1995) (doctrine ordinarily requires trial court to follow decision of appellate court with respect to all issues addressed by that opinion); United States v. Callaway, 972 F.2d 904, 905 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (under doctrine, appeals court will not review claim which was decided in prior appeal, unless substantially different evidence is introduced or prior decision is clearly erroneous and works manifest injustice). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -2-
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.
