UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 00-4123

JOHN ALVIN DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CR-97-725-DWS)

Submitted: July 20, 2000

Decided: August 2, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Eric
Wm. Ruschky, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John Alvin Davis appeals his conviction and amended sentence for
failing to stop when signaled by a United States Army Military Police
vehicle by means of a siren and flashing light, in violation of S.C.
Code Ann. § 56-5-750 (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1999), and the district
court's order denying Davis' motion to reconsider the restitution por-
tion of the previously imposed sentence.* Finding no reversible error,
we affirm.

Davis raises only one issue on appeal, claiming that the issue of
restitution was contemplated as a sentencing issue on remand.
Because Davis failed to contest the restitution order in his first appeal,
however, he has waived the issue under the mandate rule, which
"forecloses litigation of issues decided by the district court but fore-
gone on appeal or otherwise waived, for example because they were
not raised in the district court." United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66
(4th Cir. 1993). After reviewing the record, we find that none of the
exceptions to the mandate rule apply. See id. at 67.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying Davis'
motion to reconsider the restitution portion of the previously imposed
sentence and affirm Davis' conviction and amended sentence. We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*On July 13, 1999, this court remanded this case for resentencing pur-
suant to S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-750(B)(2) (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1999).
See United States v. Davis, 184 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 1999).

                     2
