review of a district court’s denial of restitution ... and neither of those avenues entitles a crime victim to direct appeal.” Alcatel-Lucent France, SA, 688 F.3d at 1306; see also Transamerica Mortg. Advisors, Inc. (TAMA) v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 19, 100 S.Ct. 242, 62 L.Ed.2d 146 (1979) (“[Wjhere a statute expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it.”); see also Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d at 54 (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow non-parties to intervene to assert their rights. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure contain no comparable provision.” (citation omitted)). Vicky cites additional cases where a non-party crime victim was allowed to appeal. See United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 722, 726 n. 2 (8th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); In re Siler, 571 F.3d 604, 608-09 (6th
holding that a nonparty who claimed an interest in property which was affected by a judgment between others had standing to seek a determination that the judgment did not cloud his title holding the nonparty had standing to appeal because it was bound or adversely affected by an injunction recognizing that the district court is not bound by its prior factual findings determined in a preliminary injunction hearing holding that appellant had standing to appeal because it was bound by the judgment even though it did not meet the second requirement holding an appeal of injunction moot where the injunction expired three months before the appellate court heard arguments in the case