N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M ISC E LLANEOUS FIREAR M S, SILENC ER S AND AM M UNITION, De fe nda

nt, And KEVIN V. DUGAN, R

e a l-pa rty -in-inte re st - Appe lla nt. No. 12-17757 No. 12-17758 D.C . No. 5:03-c v-01920-R M W D.C . No. 5:09-c v-80136-R M W M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R ona ld M . Whyte , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2014 ** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED MAY29 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s the se c a se s are suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).In the se c onsolida te d a ppe a ls, fe de ra l prisone r Ke v in V. Duga n a ppe a ls pro se from the distric t c ourt’ s e ntry

of de fa ult judgme nt in the gove rnm e nt’ s forfe iture a c tion c onc e rning c e rta in se iz e d fire arm s, a nd a uthoriz ing thede s truc t ion of othe r se iz e d fire arm s . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s de t e rm ination of whe the r a pa rty ha s sta nding to c ha lle nge a forfe iture a c tion. Unite d State s v . Re al Prope rty

Loc ate d at 475 Martin Lane , 545 F.3d 1134, 1140 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly de te rm i ne d tha

t Duga n la c ke d sta

nding to c ha lle nge the forfe iture a c tion be c a use he fa i le d to filea

ve rifie d c la im . Se eUnite d State s v . $133,420.00 in U.S. C urre nc y , 672 F.3d 629, 635 (9th C ir. 2012) (se tting forth the re quire m e nts for filing a ve rifie d c la i m

to c onte st a forfe iture a c tion); Unite d State s v . Re al Prope rty , 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th C ir. 1998) (re c o rd owne r of prope rty

is not a pa rty to forfe iture a c tion whe n re c ord owne r fa ils to c om ply with theproc e dura l re quire m e nts for opposing forfe i ture ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d the gove rnm e nt ’ s m otion for a n orde r a uthoriz i ng the de struc tion of other se iz e d fire arm s, de spite Duga n ’ s m o tion for re turn of prope rty

unde r Fe d. R . C rim . P. 41(g), be c a u se Duga n, a s a fe lon, wa s not e ntitle d to re turn of these iz e d fire arm s. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 922(g) (fe lons a re not e ntitle d to la

w ful posse ssion of fire arm s or a m m unition); Unite d State

s v . Mills ,

1 2 - 1 7 7 5 7 2991 F.2d 609, 612 (9th C ir. 1993) (distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of re turn of se iz e d

prope rty is ge ne ra lly

prope r if de fe nda

nt is not entitle d to its la

wful posse ssion). Duga n’ s c onte ntions c o nc e rning thedistric t c ourt’ s de c i sion not to c onside r va rious m otions tha

t Duga n file d in theforfe iture a c tion, a nd the gove rnm e nt’ s a lle ge d fra

ud in the distric t c ourt a

nd on a ppe a l, a re unpe rsua sive . W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). Duga n’ s re que s ts for a

sta y of the se a

p pe a ls, a nd a p pointm e nt of a

n inve stiga tor, a ll se t forth in his re

ply brie f, are de nie d . Duga n’ s re que s t for judic ia l notic e , file d on Nove m be r 25, 2013, is denie d. Duga n’ s m otion to e xpe d ite his re que st for judic ia l notic e , file d on M arc h 4, 2014, is denie d a s m oot. AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 7 7 5 7 3