United States v. Bird

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Bird

205 F. App'x 233

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Bird. Read the opinion of the Court — 401 F.3d 633 →

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided November 9, 2006·No. 06-20183·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Frank Lafayette Bird, Jr., raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Bird, 401 F.3d 633, 634 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 150, 163 L.Ed.2d 148 (2005), which held that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause even after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 120 S.Ct. 1740,146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000), and by United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir.2002), which held that under the law of the case doctrine, an issue of fact or law decided on appeal may not be reexamined by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Frank Lafayette Bird, Jr., raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Bird, 401 F.3d 633, 634 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 150, 163 L.Ed.2d 148 (2005), which held that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause even after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 120 S.Ct. 1740,146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000), and by United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir.2002), which held that under the law of the case doctrine, an issue of fact or law decided on appeal may not be reexamined by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

United States v. Bird, 205 F. App'x 233 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

205 F. App'x 233 (United States v. Bird) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related