US v. Ligon

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Paul A. Driscoll, PENDER & COWARD, P.C., Virginia Beach, Vir-

ginia, for Appellant. Mark A. Exley, Assistant United States Attorney,

Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Thomas H. Ligon pled guilty to embezzling union funds in viola-

tion of 29 U.S.C. § 501(c) (1994). The district court sentenced Ligon

to a ten-month term of imprisonment to be followed by three years

of supervised release and ordered restitution in the amount of

$16,000. We affirmed Ligon's conviction, dismissed the appeal of his

prison sentence, vacated the district court's restitution order, and

remanded for the court to make explicit findings with regard to

Ligon's ability to pay the amount of restitution ordered. See United

States v. Ligon, No. 98-4230 (4th Cir. Dec. 15, 1998) (unpublished).

On remand, the district court considered Ligon's ability to pay and

ordered Ligon to pay restitution in the amount of $5050. Ligon

appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in

ordering him to pay $5050, given his financial resources. We have

reviewed the briefs, the joint appendices, and the district court's order

imposing $5050 in restitution and find no abuse of discretion.*

See United States v. Blake, 81 F.3d 498, 505 (4th Cir. 1996) (stating

standard of review). We therefore affirm the district court's resentenc-

ing order.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________

*The government argues on appeal that the law-of-the-case doctrine

should not preclude us from revisiting our prior decision. Because we

find that there was no manifest injustice in this case, the government has

not established an exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine. See United

States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir.) (discussing doctrine and

exceptions), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 2022 (1999); United States v.

Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 754-56 (5th Cir. 1998) (rejecting government's

attempt to show manifest injustice where government for first time on

appeal after remand introduced new evidence that it had opportunity to

present to prior panel).

2