Opinion
No. 05-50847.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed March 7, 2008.
April Anita Christine, Esq., Becky S. Walker, Esq., USLA — Office of The U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kyle Gee, Esq., Henrikson Gee, Karyn H. Bucur, Esq., Oakland, CA, Karyn H. Bucur Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA Eachel Lee Meyer FCIP — Federal Correctional Institution, (Phoenix) Female Unit, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-03-01257-02.
Before: GOODWIN, SCHEOEDEE, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Meyer was jointly tried with Joseph Fabricant and they separately appealed. We reversed Fabricant's convictions due to a Confrontation Clause violation. See United States v. Fabricant, 240 Fed.Appx. 244 (9th Cir. 2007). Meyer raises the same issue on appeal. Under the law of the case doctrine, we are bound by our previous ruling. See United States v. Schaff, 948 F.2d 501, 506 (9th Cir. 1991) ("We have previously found the law of the case doctrine to be applicable when the appeal of one co-defendant is decided prior to the appeal of the other co-defendant, if both were convicted at the same trial.") (citing United States v. Tierney, 448 F.2d 37, 39 (9th Cir. 1971)).
Accordingly, we EEVEESE Meyer's convictions and VACATE her sentence.
For the reasons expressed in my dissent to the decision in United States v. Fabricant, 240 Fed.Appx. 244 (9th Cir. 2007), I would affirm. However, I am bound by the law of the case and I join in the judgment as to co-defendant Rachel Lee Meyer.