With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: recognizing that the district court is not bound by its prior factual findings determined in a preliminary injunction hearing
B: 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
C: holding that appellant had standing to appeal because it was bound by the judgment even though it did not meet the second requirement
D: holding the nonparty had standing to appeal because it was bound or adversely affected by an injunction
D.