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. DANIEL OB ERHOLTZER , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30147

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00016-R AJ-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R ic ha rd A. Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 8, 2016 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS, R

AW LINSON, a

nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Danie l Obe rholtz e r a

ppe a ls theim

position of a

pe rsona l m one y judgm e nt a ga inst him

unde r c rim ina l forfe iture sta tute s, a fte r he ple d guilty

to c onspira c y

to tra ffic in c ounte rfe it goods. Oberholtz e r a sse rts tha t: (1) thedistric t c ourt la c ke d



# FIL ED JAN 04 2017 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. 1the a

uthority to im pose a pe rsona l m one y

judgm e nt a ga inst him ; (2) the pe rsona l m one y judgm e nt wa s a

n e xc e s sive fine in viola

tion of theEighth Am e ndm e nt; (3) the d istric t c o urt e rrone ously c a lc ulate d the forfe iture am ount; (4) thepe rsona l m one y judgm e nt viola

te d the e x post fac to c la

use be c a use it wa s ba se d on a c tivity that oc c urre d prior to C ongre s s pa ssing thec rim ina l forfe i ture sta tue s; (5) he wa s de prive d of his right to proc e dura l due proc e s s due to the distric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of the e xpe dite d forfe iture proc e dure s unde r Fe d e ra l R ule of C rim ina l Proc e d ure 32.2(b)(1); a

nd (6) the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion in deny ing his m otions for a

c ontinua n c e of the forfe iture he a

ring.
The distric t c ourt ha d a

uthority to e nte r a pe rsona l m one y

judgm e nt a ga inst Obe rholtz e r. S

e eUnite d State

s v . C ase y , 444 F.3d 1071, 1073-75 (9th C ir. 2006). Obe rholtz e r argue s tha

t C ase y should beove rturne d, but this pa ne l m a y not ove rturn binding pre c e de nt a b se nt a “ c le arly irre c onc ila

ble ” Supre m e C ourt de c ision. Rodrigue

z v . AT & T Mobility Se rv

s. LLC , 728 F.3d 975, 979 (9th C ir. 2013) (c ita

tion omitte d).
Obe rholtz e r’ s re m a ining c la im s la c k m e rit. Se eUnite d State s v . N e w man , 659 F.3d 1235, 1242 (9th C ir. 2011) (e xp la ining tha t a pe rsona l m o ne y

judgm e nt is 2a

ty pe of c rim ina l forfe iture ); Unite d State s v . Orlando , 553 F.3d 1235, 1237-38 (9th C ir. 2009) (holding tha t a distric t c ourt a c te d

within its disc

re tion whe n

it de nie d a c ontinua nc e be c a u se the de fe nda

nt fa i le d to de m onstra

te pre judic e ); Unite d State s v . Hamilton , 208 F.3d 1165, 1169 (9th C ir. 2000) (holding tha t due proc e s s re quire s only “ re a s ona ble notic e and a

n opportunity

to be he ard” ) (c ita

tion om i tte d); Unite d State

s v . Ladum , 141 F.3d 1328, 1348-49 (9th C ir. 1998) (upholding a

c rim ina l forfe i ture a ga inst a n Eighth Am e ndm e nt c ha lle nge ); Unite d State s v . Frank

, 956 F.2d 872, 875 (9th C ir. 1991), as ame nde d (holding tha

t a de fe nda nt fa ils to de m onstra

te c le ar e rror “ by

pointing to c onflic ting e vide nc e in the re c ord” ); Unite d State s v . Inafuk

u , 938 F.2d 972, 973-74 (9th C ir. 1991) (upholding a

pplic ation of thela

w “ a s it e x ists a

t the e nd of [a ] c onspira c y ” a ga inst an e x post fac to c l a

use c h a lle nge ) (c ita

tions omitte d ).

AFFIRM E D.

3