OLAWALE AYINDE NMN v. UNITED STATES (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Olawale-Ayinde appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for the return of property forfeited under 18 U.S.C. § 981. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In 2008, the district court determined the sought-after property was properly subject to civil forfeiture under § 981. This court affirmed. See United States v. Olawale, 370 F. App'x 797 (9th Cir. 2010). Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Lummi Nation, 763 F.3d 1180, 1185 (9th Cir. 2014), we agree with the district court that the instant motion is controlled by the law of the case doctrine. See id. (if an issue was previously decided, whether explicitly or by necessary implication, law of the case doctrine prohibits the court from reconsidering it). Moreover, Olawale-Ayinde failed to show in the district court, and has not shown on appeal, that any exception to the doctrine applies. See United States v. Jingles, 702 F.3d 494, 502-03 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2012) (listing exceptions). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion by declining to reconsider Olawale-Ayinde's motion. See United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443, 452-53 (9th Cir. 2000) (the district court abuses its discretion by applying the law of the case doctrine only if one of the exceptions applies).

AFFIRMED.