branch. Whatever the merits of thesé contentions may be, the United States convincingly argues that the order to deposit $7.4 million was made not pursuant to its motion for injunctive relief, but rather to force compliance' with the District Court’s earlier order of December 2001. The GVI did not appeal the December 2001 order then, nor does it challenge its validity now, and the United States submits that because the GVI did not appeal the December 2001 order, the GVI is bound by its terms, barring its challenge to the deposit requirement. See Del. River Port Auth. v. Fraternal Order of Police, 290 F.3d 567, 572 (3d Cir.2002) (“[I]ssue preclusion prevents relitigation of the same issues in a later case.”); United States v. Millstone Enters. Inc., 864 F.2d 21, 23 (3d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). We agree. Furthermore, at the October 2001
holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment holding the relitigation exception was limited to those situations in which the state court has not yet ruled on the merits of the res judicata issue holding that because relitigation of issue was barred by collateral estoppel res judicata determination of finality of judgment dismissed for lack of standing was not relevant holding that res judicata precludes relitigation of issue that was or could have been decided in enforcement order that was not appealed holding that res judicata prevents relitigation of a claim that was previously the subject of a valid and final decision of this court