United States v. Pedro Serpa

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Pedro Serpa

930 F.2d 639, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 6050, 1991 WL 55326

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 16, 1991

Docket89-2463NE

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 930 F.2d 639 (United States v. Pedro Serpa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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. Pedro Serpa, 930 F.2d 639, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 6050, 1991 WL 55326 (8th Cir. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pedro Serpa appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for resentencing. We affirm.

After his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, Serpa convinced the district court to hold the sentencing guidelines unconstitutional. The district court then sentenced Serpa to fifteen years imprisonment. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989) (holding sentencing guidelines constitutional), this court reversed the district court’s holding that the guidelines were unconstitutional, but affirmed Serpa’s nonguidelines sentence. United States v. Serpa, No. 88-2427 (8th Cir. Mar. 1, 1989) (unpublished, per curiam opinion). Serpa sought no further review of that decision.

Serpa now collaterally attacks his sentence arguing that although he “convince[d] the [district [cjourt to find that the sentencing guidelines should not be applied in his case,” he received “a sentence [exceeding] the appropriate guidelines range” and thus should be resentenced within “the guidelines matrix.” We disagree. This court affirmed Serpa’s sentence in his earlier appeal, “and our holding on that point, even if erroneous, is now the law of the case.” McCurry v. Tesch, 824 F.2d 638, 640 (8th Cir.1987). Because Serpa did not challenge his sentence in that appeal, or seek reconsideration of the decision, he cannot now collaterally attack that decision or his sentence in a section 2255 habeas action. Cf. United States v. Samuelson, 722 F.2d 425, 427 (8th Cir.1983) (“section 2255 is not a substitute for direct appeal, and matters which could have been raised on appeal will not be considered”). Although the law-of-the-case doctrine does not preclude us from reconsidering and correcting an erroneous decision, we will do so only to prevent a manifest injustice. Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. HUD, 807 F.2d 1433, 1441 (8th Cir.1986). This case does not present that situation.

Accordingly, we affirm Serpa’s sentence.

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

PER CURIAM.

Pedro Serpa appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for resentencing. We affirm.

After his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, Serpa convinced the district court to hold the sentencing guidelines unconstitutional. The district court then sentenced Serpa to fifteen years imprisonment. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989) (holding sentencing guidelines constitutional), this court reversed the district court’s holding that the guidelines were unconstitutional, but affirmed Serpa’s nonguidelines sentence. United States v. Serpa, No. 88-2427 (8th Cir. Mar. 1, 1989) (unpublished, per curiam opinion). Serpa sought no further review of that decision.

Serpa now collaterally attacks his sentence arguing that although he “convince[d] the [district [cjourt to find that the sentencing guidelines should not be applied in his case,” he received “a sentence [exceeding] the appropriate guidelines range” and thus should be resentenced within “the guidelines matrix.” We disagree. This court affirmed Serpa’s sentence in his earlier appeal, “and our holding on that point, even if erroneous, is now the law of the case.” McCurry v. Tesch, 824 F.2d 638, 640 (8th Cir.1987). Because Serpa did not challenge his sentence in that appeal, or seek reconsideration of the decision, he cannot now collaterally attack that decision or his sentence in a section 2255 habeas action. Cf. United States v. Samuelson, 722 F.2d 425, 427 (8th Cir.1983) (“section 2255 is not a substitute for direct appeal, and matters which could have been raised on appeal will not be considered”). Although the law-of-the-case doctrine does not preclude us from reconsidering and correcting an erroneous decision, we will do so only to prevent a manifest injustice. Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. HUD, 807 F.2d 1433, 1441 (8th Cir.1986). This case does not present that situation.

Accordingly, we affirm Serpa’s sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

930 F.2d 639, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 6050, 1991 WL 55326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pedro-serpa-ca8-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack