United States v. Jacob Martinez

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Jacob Martinez

670 F. App'x 885

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 29, 2016

Docket15-41327 Summary Calendar

StatusUnpublished

This text of 670 F. App'x 885 (United States v. Jacob Martinez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Jacob Martinez, 670 F. App'x 885 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Jacob Matthew Martinez pleaded guilty to one count of interfering with commerce by threats or violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). On remand, he was re-sentenced to 87 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, $223,627.40 in restitution, and a $100 special assessment.

As he did in his previous appeal, see United States v. Martinez, 614 Fed.Appx. 165, 166 n.1 (5th Cir. 2015), Martinez contends that § 1951(a) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to his case. He concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent but seeks to preserve the issues for further review.

The appeal was stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor v. United States, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2074, 195 L.Ed.2d 456 (2016). Taylor has now been decided, and the Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance asserting that Martinez’s arguments remain foreclosed by circuit precedent. In the alternative, the Government requests *886 an extension of time in which to file a brief on the merits.

“Generally, the law of the case'doctrine precludes reexamination by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal of an issue of law or fact decided on a previous appeal.” United States v. Agofsky, 516 F.3d 280, 283 (5th Cir. 2008). Because we rejected Martinez’s challenges to the constitutionality of § 1951(a) in his previous appeal, see Martinez, 614 Fed.Appx. at 166 n.1, and none of the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine apply, see Agofsky, 516 F.3d at 283, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: *

Jacob Matthew Martinez pleaded guilty to one count of interfering with commerce by threats or violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). On remand, he was re-sentenced to 87 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, $223,627.40 in restitution, and a $100 special assessment.

As he did in his previous appeal, see United States v. Martinez, 614 Fed.Appx. 165, 166 n.1 (5th Cir. 2015), Martinez contends that § 1951(a) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to his case. He concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent but seeks to preserve the issues for further review.

The appeal was stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor v. United States, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2074, 195 L.Ed.2d 456 (2016). Taylor has now been decided, and the Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance asserting that Martinez’s arguments remain foreclosed by circuit precedent. In the alternative, the Government requests *886 an extension of time in which to file a brief on the merits.

“Generally, the law of the case'doctrine precludes reexamination by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal of an issue of law or fact decided on a previous appeal.” United States v. Agofsky, 516 F.3d 280, 283 (5th Cir. 2008). Because we rejected Martinez’s challenges to the constitutionality of § 1951(a) in his previous appeal, see Martinez, 614 Fed.Appx. at 166 n.1, and none of the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine apply, see Agofsky, 516 F.3d at 283, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 F. App'x 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jacob-martinez-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack