
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Dominick DIONISIO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-155-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 21, 2011.
    James R. Froccaro, Jr., Port Washington, NY, for Appellant.
    Nicole M. Argentieri, David C. James, and James D. Gatta, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, DENNY CHIN, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Dominick Dionisio appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Irizarry, J.), which denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on account of double jeopardy. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

We review Dionisio’s double jeopardy challenge de novo. United States v. Dionisio (Dionisio I), 503 F.3d 78, 81 (2d Cir.2007). Here, the district court denied Dionisio’s motion pursuant to the law-of-the-case doctrine’s mandate rule. The mandate rule provides: “where issues have been explicitly or implicitly decided on appeal, the district court is obliged, on remand, to follow the decision of the appellate court.” Burrell v. United States, 467 F.3d 160, 165 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation mark omitted). “In other words, the trial court is barred from reconsidering or modifying any of its prior decisions that have been ruled on by the court of appeals.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “When an appellate court has once decided an issue, the trial court, at a later stage in the litigation, is under a duty to follow the appellate court’s ruling on that issue.” United States v. Cirami, 563 F.2d 26, 32 (2d Cir.1977). The mandate rule “forecloses relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.” United States v. Ben Zvi, 242 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir.2001) (internal quotation mark omitted).

In Dionisio I, we held that jeopardy had not attached to the dismissed conspiracy charge because Dionisio never faced a genuine risk of conviction for that charge. Dionisio I, 503 F.3d at 89. Dionisio petitioned this court for rehearing or rehearing en banc, making the same arguments he makes today. In his rehearing petition, he included a transcript of his guilty plea. We rejected his argument that allocuting to “some” elements relevant to the conspiracy charge placed him at genuine risk of conviction. See United States v. Dioni-sio, No. 06-0908-cr (2d Cir. Mar. 24, 2008) (order denying rehearing).

Consequently, the mandate rule precluded the district court from considering Dionisio’s renewed motion. We have considered Dionisio’s additional arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court denying Dionisio’s motion to dismiss the indictment is hereby AFFIRMED.  