Richard Olawale-Ayinde v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 11, 2020
• Docket: 19-55818
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD OLAWALE-AYINDE, AKA No. 19-55818 Richard Ayinde Fadahunsi, AKA Richard Elegbe, AKA Olawale Fadahunsi, AKA D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01849-WDK Richard Fadahunsi, AKA Richard A. Fadahunsi Olawale, AKA Kevin Miller, AKA Sean Mobley, AKA Ayinda Richard MEMORANDUM* 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.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California William D. Keller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020**

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

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.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 19-55818