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 ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. IVOR YC R OW , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10505

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00285-RJB -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. IVOR YC R OW , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-10165

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00285-RJB -1

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R obe rt J. B ry a

n, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED JUN 09 2016 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.Subm itte d M ay 5, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s a nd STEIN, *** Distric t Judge . Appe lla nt Ivory C row wa s se nte nc e d a fte r ple a ding guilty to m ultiplec ounts of ba nk fra u d a nd the ft of gove rnm e nt funds. On a ppe a l, he ra ise s two a

rgum e nts: (1) the gove rnm e nt prom ise d him tra nsa c tiona l im

m unity for his c rim e s, a

nd (2) he is e ntitle d to there turn of m one y the gove rnm e nt took from c e rta in ba

nk a c c ounts. W e a ffirm . 1 C row’ s c ounse l ne ve r ra i se d the issueof tra nsa c tiona l im

m unity be low, so we re vie wtha

t issuefor pla i n e rror. He m mings v . Tidy man's Inc
. , 285 F.3d 1174, 1193 (9th C ir. 2002). A de nia l of a m otion to re turn prope rty is re vie we d de novo.

** The pa

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

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble Sidne y

H. Ste in, Distric t

Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for theSouthe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion. 1 The gove rnm e nt file d a se pa rate m otion to dism

iss thea p pe a l in pa

rt, arguing tha

t C row wa ive d his right to a ppe a l the tra

n sa c t iona l im

m unity issueby unc onditionally

ple a ding guilty

in thedistric t c ourt. W e ne e d not re a c h this issue be c a use , e ve n a ssum ing C row did not waive his right to a ppe a l this issue , the re is no m e rit to his a

rgum e nt. Se eUnite d State s v . J ac o b o C astillo , 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba

nc ) (holding tha

t fe de ra l a ppe lla te c o urts m a inta in jurisdic tion e ve n whe re a de fe nda nt unc onditionally wa ive s the right to a ppe a l). The gove rnm e nt’ s m otion is denie d a s m oot. 2Unite d

State s v . Harre ll , 530 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th C ir. 2008). Thedistric t c ourt’ s re late d fa c t

ua l findings a

re re vie we d for c le a

r e rror. Id 1. C row a

rgue s tha t, a s pa rt of a ple a a gre e m e nt in a

n unre late d

c a se , he wa s prom ise d tra nsa c tiona l im

m unity for the c rim e s he is c ha

rge d with in this c a se . Ple a a gre e m e nts a

re gove rne d by

e ve ry da y c ontra c t princ iple s a

nd give n the ir obje c tive m e aning: W

hat would a re a sona ble de fe nda

nt unde rsta

n d from the ple a a gre e m e nt’ s writte n te rm s a nd the surrounding c irc um sta nc e s? U nite d State

s v . De La Fue n te , 8 F.3d 1333, 1337 (9th C ir.1993); se e also Unite d State s v . Spe a r , 753 F.3d 964, 969 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ [W ] e look to ‘ what the de fe nda nt re a s ona

b ly unde rstood to bethe te rm s of the a gre e m e nt whe n he ple a de d guilty .’ ” )
. C row ha s produc e d no e v ide nc e indic ating hewa s prom ise d tra nsa c t iona l im m unity ; inde e d

the e vide nc e shows just the opposite . The ple a

a gre e m e nt a

nd proffe r a gre e m e nt tha

t C row signe d e xpre s sly

sta te he wa s prom ise d use im m unity , not transac tional im

m unity . C row c ould not re a sona bly be lie ve he wa s be ing prom ise d bla nke t tra nsa c tiona l im

m unity whe re he wa s e xpre ssly

prom ise d the na rrowe r use im

m unity . S e eUnite d State

s v . Plumme r , 941 F.2d 799, 803 (9th C ir. 1991) (holding tha

t de fe nda nt wa s not promise d

tra nsa c tiona l im

m unity whe re ple a a gre e m e nt e xpre ssly

prom ise d only use im m unity). Furthe r, the ple a

a gre e m e nt dispe lle d a

ny doubt tha t C row wa s prom ise d a

nything m o re be c a

use it sta t e d tha t 3a ll of thegove rnm e nt’ s prom ise s we re c onta i ne d in the writte n a gre e m e nt. The

U.S. inspe c tor who took C row’ s proffe r spe c ific a lly told him tha t he wa s not be ing prom ise d anything with re spe c t to a possiblefuture prose c ution for his fra ud c rim e s. Nor doe s a

nything e lse in there c ord indic ate C row re a sona bly be lie ve d he wa s prom ise d tra

n sa c tiona l im

m unity . C row a rgue s no re a sona

ble de fe nda

nt would ha

ve he lpe d the gove rnm e nt for so little in re turn. B ut a de fe nda

nt c a nnot c ha lle n ge a

ple a a gre e m e nt be c a

use in re trospe c t he be l ie ve s it wa s a ba d de a l . And in a

ny e v e nt, the gove rnm e nt ga ve C row m uc h m ore tha

n just useim

m unity : It a lso re c om

m e nde d a signific a nt downwa rd se nte nc i ng de pa

rture in a nothe r c a s e . C row provide d no e vide nc e showing tha t he wa s prom ise d

tra nsa c tiona l im m unity , m uc h le ss e sta

blishing the

distric t c ourt pla inly

e rre d in not ra ising the issue on its own. W e m

ust the re fore a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s se nte nc e . 2. C row a

rgue s the gove rnm e nt wrongfully took $70,000 from

his ba nk a c c ounts a

n d tha t he i s e nt itle d to ha

ve this m one y

re turne d to him . To pre va il on a m otion for re turn of prope rty , C row m ust de m onstra

te tha t (1) he is e ntitle d to la wful posse ssion of these iz e d prope rty ; (2) the prope rty is not c o ntra

ba nd; a nd (3) e ithe r the se izure wa s ille ga l o r the gove rnm e nt’ s ne e d for the prope rty a s e vide nc e

4ha s e nde d . Unite d State s v . Van C

auw e nbe rghe , 827 F.2d 424, 433 (9th C ir. 1987). C row ha s not e sta

b l ishe d he is e ntitle d to posse ss thefunds from the s e a c c ounts or tha

t the funds a

re not c ontra

ba nd. C row a d

m its hede posite d stole n c he c ks into the se a c c o unts, a nd the re is no indic ation in the re c ord tha

t C row pa rtitione d a

ny la wful funds from

the illic it funds. M o re ove r, the se a c c ounts a re not e ve n owne d by C row, so hedoe s not ha ve any c la im to the m e ve n if the y

did c onta in unta inte d funds. AFFIRM E D.

5