#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy S. DURHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-2474.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2016.

Decided Feb. 3, 2016.

Winfield D. Ong, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Juliann'e Cartmel, Attorney, Cartmel Group, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant-Appellant.

Timothy S. Durham, Pine Knot, KY, pro se.

Before MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge, and J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.*

*

 Of the Southern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

ORDER

Timothy Durham, James Cochran, and Rick Snow operated a massive Ponzi scheme resulting in losses of more than $200 million to thousands of victims. The three men were convicted on multiple counts of conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud, and received lengthy sentences. In a previous appeal, we affirmed *635their convictions and sentences in all respects except one: we vacated two of Durham’s ten counts of conviction and remanded for resentencing “without those counts in the mix.” *United States v. Durham (“Durham I”),*766 F.3d 672, 676 (7th Cir.2014).

On remand Durham attempted to reopen the district court’s previous loss-amount calculation, *see*U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, which had been challenged and explicitly affirmed in the earlier appeal, *Durham I,*766 F.3d at 686-88. The judge declined to revisit the matter because the loss amount was conclusively fixed in *Durham I*and was now law of the case. The judge found that Durham’s final offense level of 47— above the top level of 43 under the Sentencing Guidelines — remained the same without the two vacated counts “in the mix.” Indeed, the probation office prepared a new presentence report, but the guidelines calculations were unchanged. After reweighing the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the judge reimposed the same sentence: 50 years in prison.

Durham again appeals, arguing primarily that he was entitled to reopen the loss-amount calculation at resentencing. That’s incorrect. “If this [cjourt remands to correct a ‘discrete, particular error that can be corrected ... without ... a rede-termination of other issues, the district court is limited to correcting that error.’ ” *United States v. Barnes,*660 F.3d 1000, 1006 (7th Cir.2011) (quoting *United States v. Parker,*101 F.3d 527, 528 (7th Cir.1996)). And the law-of-the-case doctrine generally prohibits the district court “from reconsidering on remand an issue expressly or impliedly decided by a higher court.” *United States v. Adams,*746 F.3d 734, 744 (7th Cir.2014) (quotation marks omitted).

We considered and rejected Durham’s challenge to the district court’s loss-amount calculation in the earlier appeal. *Durham I,*766 F.3d at 686-88. That determination is conclusive; the mandate rule and the law-of-the-case doctrine combine to prohibit Durham’s effort to reopen it.

Durham also argues that he is entitled to yet another resentencing based on a recent clarification of the loss-amount guideline regarding the manner of calculating intended loss. We previously affirmed the district court’s loss-amount calculation based on an *actual loss*in excess of $200 million; that’s independently sufficient regardless of the intended loss. *Id.*at 688.

Finally, Durham argues that because his sentence was based on judge-found facts, it violates his Fifth and Sixth Amendments rights to due process and trial by jury. This argument wasn’t raised in *Durham I*and thus is waived. *Barnes,*660 F.3d at 1006 (“[A]ny issue that could have been raised on [an earlier] appeal but was not is waived....”).

AFFIRMED.