Opinion ID: 2673094
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Merin’s Remaining Argument

Text: Merin raises one additional argument. He contends that the evidence at trial failed to establish an agreement on his part to undertake or aid all of the conspiracy’s bank fraud activity, and so the District Court erred in attributing to him the full loss caused by the conspiracy. Merin raised, and we rejected, this same loss-calculation argument on direct appeal. Norman, 465 F. App’x at 123-25. That decision is law of the case, and Merin has not shown the “extraordinary circumstances” we generally require before we will revisit a prior decision in the same action.14 Feesers, Inc. v. Michael Foods, Inc., 591 F.3d 191, 207 (3d Cir. 2010).