opinion in this ease was decided during the preliminary injunction stage does not impact the applicability of the law-of-the-case doctrine in this case. Rather, the prior panel clearly determined that § 16-12-80 banned all advertising to even legal consumers, and, thus, violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. As such, this Court’s prior legal conclusion was binding on the district court, just as it is now binding on us. See Roe v. State of Alabama, 68 F.3d 404, 408 (11th Cir.1995) (applying the law of the case and stating that “[ajlthough the law established by the prior panel was announced in a preliminary injunction posture, ... the principle of law adopted was clear”); Nat’l Airlines, Inc. v. Int’l Assoc. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 430 F.2d 957, 960 (5th Cir.1970) (<HOLDING>) (internal punctuation and citations omitted).
holding that an issue not raised on direct appeal of sentence is barred by the law of the case from presentation in a subsequent appeal holding 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 holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   recognizing that the lawofthecase doctrine applies to preliminary injunctions and stating that tjhe exception to law of the case where evidence on a subsequent trial is substantially different is inapplicable where by the prior appeal the issue is not left open for decision holding that application of the doctrine of law of the case is discretionary and that a district court abuses its discretion in applying the law of the case doctrine only if 1 the first decision was clearly erroneous 2 an intervening change in the law occurred 3 the evidence on remand was substantially different 4 other changed circumstances exist or 5 a manifest injustice would otherwise result