United States v. Ligon ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4500
THOMAS H. LIGON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
(CR-97-131)
Submitted: March 28, 2000
Decided: April 17, 2000
Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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States v. Ligon, No. 98-4230 (4th Cir. Dec. 15, 1998) (unpublished).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