AND JUDGMENT Michael R. Murphy, Circuit Judge I. Introduction Defendant-Appellant, Michael Hendrix, challenges the district court’s authority to extend his original term of supervised release by one year. Although this court has already ruled against Hendrix on that very issue, United States v. Hendrix (Hendrix I), 630 Fed.Appx. 816, 819-20 (10th Cir. 2015), he asserts our prior decision is “clearly erroneous” and, thus, the law of the case doctrine does not preclude reconsideration of. the issue. See McIlravy v. Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., 204 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>). Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
holding that a ruling from a prior decision of this court becomes the law of the case that cannot be challenged in a later proceeding quotation marks omitted holding that appellate court reviewing trial courts habeas corpus ruling must review record evidence in light most favorable to ruling and uphold ruling absent abuse of discretion holding that application of the doctrine of law of the case is discretionary and that a district court abuses its discretion in applying the law of the case doctrine only if 1 the first decision was clearly erroneous 2 an intervening change in the law occurred 3 the evidence on remand was substantially different 4 other changed circumstances exist or 5 a manifest injustice would otherwise result holding that an unappealed ruling is the law of the case holding law of the case principles do not prevent this court from revisiting a prior ruling if that ruling was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice