UNITED STATES v. MOORE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-23No. No. 20-30273

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's application of the obstruction sentencing enhancement on remand, holding that the law of the case doctrine properly prevented reconsideration of an issue already decided on prior appeal.

Moore was previously sentenced with an obstruction enhancement based on findings that he gave false testimony on a material matter with willful intent. On remand for resentencing following a prior appeal, the district court declined to reconsider the obstruction enhancement, applying the law of the case doctrine. Moore argued on this appeal that he did not actually make the false statement and that the prior appellate decision was clearly erroneous, warranting an exception to the law of the case doctrine. The court rejected his argument, finding that the appellate record supported the enhancement and that none of the recognized exceptions to the law of the case doctrine applied.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the law of the case doctrine bars reconsideration of an obstruction enhancement on remand
Whether Moore's claim of clear error in the prior decision constitutes an exception to the law of the case doctrine
Whether the record supported the district court's initial findings of false testimony, materiality, and willfulness

Procedural posture

This is Moore's second appeal following remand for resentencing after the appellate court had previously affirmed an obstruction enhancement but reversed an abuse of trust enhancement.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

On a prior appeal, among other things, we affirmed the district courts application of a sentencing enhancement for obstruction, reversed the district courts application of a sentencing enhancement for abuse of trust, and remanded for resentencing. The district court imposed a new sentence after remand, and John Kevin Moore again appeals the district courts application of a sentencing enhancement for obstruction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court previously found that Moore falsely testified, that his false statement was willful, and that it was material. See United States v. Castro-Ponce, 770 F.3d 819, 822 (9th Cir. 2014) (“For perjury to be deemed obstruction, the district court must find that: (1) the defendant gave false testimony, (2) on a material matter, (3) with willful intent.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We affirmed.

On remand, the district court properly declined to reconsider the U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement based on the law of the case doctrine. See Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383, 389 n.4 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“Under the law of the case doctrine, a court will generally refuse to reconsider an issue that has already been decided by the same court or a higher court in the same case.”). Moore contends that at trial he did not make the false statement, such that our opinion was clearly erroneous and supports an exception to the law of the case doctrine. See id. (“We have recognized exceptions to the law of the case doctrine ․ where (1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest injustice, (2) intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate, or (3) substantially different evidence was adduced at a subsequent trial.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We disagree. We previously concluded that the record supported the enhancement, and no exception to the law of the case doctrine is applicable.

AFFIRMED.