Opinion
No. 19-55818
08-11-2020
RICHARD OLAWALE-AYINDE, AKA Richard Ayinde Fadahunsi, AKA Richard Elegbe, AKA Olawale Fadahunsi, AKA Richard Fadahunsi, AKA Richard A. Fadahunsi Olawale, AKA Kevin Miller, AKA Sean Mobley, AKA Ayinda Richard Olawale, AKA Ayinde Richard Olawale, AKA Fadahunsi Richard Olawale, AKA Jani Ray Olawale, AKA Richard Olawale, AKA Richard Ayinde F. Olawale, AKA Richard F. Olawale, AKA Richard Fadahunsi Olawale, AKA Richard NMN Olawale, AKA Charles Parker, AKA Ken Saag, AKA Wantannapom Surachai, AKA Brian Weiner, AKA Richard Williams, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01849-WDK MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
William D. Keller, District Judge, Presiding Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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.