Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rose BROCK-DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-28
Citations: 302 F. App'x 537
Docket Number: No. 08-30074
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rose BROCK-DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 302
Pages: 537–538

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.