
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wayne Alan PARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30308
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 5, 2016  Seattle, Washington
    Filed November 18, 2016
    Cyndee L. Peterson, Timothy John Ra-cicot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USMI—Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    John Rhodes, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana (Missoula), Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    
      Before: W. FLETCHER, FISHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges,
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

For the third time, Wayne Alan Partin seeks to challenge imposition of Sentencing Guidelines enhancements to his conviction for access with intent to view child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Partin contends United States v. Kuchinski, 469 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2006), prevents imposition of these enhancements. Because this issue has already been addressed by a previous panel, the law of the case prevents us from considering the question anew. See United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997).

Partin’s argument that the previous panel’s decision should be afforded little deference under United States v. Houser, 804 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1986), is unpersuasive. Unlike the motions panel in Houser, the previous merits panel provided more than sufficient explanation of its decision. See United States v. Partin, 565 Fed.Appx. 626, 626-27 (9th Cir. 2014). That Partin chose not to seek en banc review or file a certiorari petition is of no consequence. Nothing prevented him from doing so. He chose to take his chances on remand. Lack of success there does not mandate review here.

Partin does not convince us that any of the circumstances meriting reconsideration of a previously resolved question are present. See Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 155 (9th Cir. 1993). We therefore decline to do so.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     