Case ID: f-appx_302/html/0537-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rose BROCK-DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-30074.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
    
    Filed Nov. 28, 2008.
    John P. Rhodes, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Michael S. Lahr, USHE-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rose Brock-Davis appeals from the district court’s restitution order following remand from this court’s decision in United States v. Brock-Davis, 504 F.3d 991 (9th Cir.2007). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Brock-Davis contends that the district court erred by ordering restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”), because an owner of a motel is not a victim under the MVRA, and because the imposition of restitution violated her Sixth Amendment rights. We have already addressed these contentions in United States v. Brock-Davis, 504 F.3d 991 (9th Cir.2007), and therefore decline to address them again pursuant to the law of the case doctrine. See United States v. Scrivner, 189 F.3d 825, 827-28 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.