NO T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. THOM AS GR OSSI, Sr.; e t a l., C la im an ts - Appe lla nts, a nd ALB ER T B . DEL M A SSO, C la im an t, a nd 2638 M ARKET STREET, OAKLAND, C ALIFOR

NIA; e t a l., De fe nda

nts. No. 13-15487 D.C . Nos. 4:04-c v-03055-DLJ

4:04-c r-40127-DLJ-4 Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , Oakla nd ORDER

B e fore : N.R . SM ITH a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s and C O LLINS, * C hie f Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED AUG 26 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* The Honora

ble R ane r C . C ollins, C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.The m e m orandum disposition file d on June 23, 2015 is a m e nde d and file d c onc urre ntly with this order. The pe tition for pa ne l re he aring is DENIED. Judge Sm i th would gra

nt the pe tition. No furthe r pe titions sha

ll be e n te rta ine d.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. THOM AS GR OSSI, Sr.; e t a l., C la im an ts - Appe lla nts, a nd ALB ER T B . DEL M A SSO, C la im an t, a nd 2638 M ARKET STREET, OAKLAND, C ALIFOR

NIA; e t a l., De fe nda

nts. No. 13-15487 D.C . Nos. 4:04-c v-03055-DLJ

4:04-c r-40127-DLJ-4

AM ENDED 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 D. Lowe ll Je nse n, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED AUG 26 2015 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.Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

15, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia File d June 23, 2015 Am e nde d August 26, 2015 B e fore : N.R . SM ITH a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s , a nd C OLLINS, ** C hie f Distric t Judge . Thom a s Grossi a

nd La ure tta W e im e r a

ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing the ir m otion for a ttorne y s’ fe e s unde r the C ivil Asse t Forfe iture R e form Ac t, 28 U.S.C . § 2465. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re vie w the distric t c o urt’ s orde r for a buse of disc re tion. K

.C . e x re l. Eric a C

. v . Torlak son , 762 F.3d 963, 966 (9th C ir. 2014). W e a ffirm in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, and re m and. B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts, we do not re c ount the m in de ta il he re . 1. The gove rnm e nt is c orre c t tha t W e im e r is not e n title d to a n a ward of attorne y s’ fe e s be c a

use she did not “ substa

ntia lly pre va i l[] ” unde r C AFR

A. 28 U.S.C . § 2465(b)(1). A c l a im ant doe s not substa ntia lly pre va il unle ss a

c ourt orde rs the gove rnm e nt to a fford tha t c la im ant som e re l ie f. Se e Buc k hannon Bd. & C areHome , Inc . v . W

. Va. De p’t of He alth &Human Re s. , 532 U.S. 598, 605 (2001); Sy nagogue

v . Unite d State

s , 482 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th C ir. 2007). Grossi,

** The Honora

ble R ane r C . C ollins, C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion. 2 1 3 - 1 5 4 8 7not the gove rnm e n t, provide d W e im e r with he r re lie f by re pa y ing he r volunta

rily , and not by

c ourt orde r. W e the re fore a ffirm the de nia l of W e im e r’ s fe e s m otion. Se e C lassic Me dia, Inc . v . Me w born , 532 F.3d 978, 990 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ B e c a use we c an a ffirm

on a ny ground supporte d

by the re c ord, we a ffirm

the de nia l of attorne y s’ fe e s . . . .” (inte rna l c ita tion omitte d )). 2. The distric t c ourt de nie d Grossi’ s fe e s m o tion be c a u se C AFR

A prohibits fe e s hifting in fa

vor of a c l a im a nt whose prope rty

inte re st wa s de te rm ine d to be subje c t to c rim ina l forfe i ture . 28 U.S.C . § 2465(b)(2)(B ). Howe ve r, a fte r Grossi re pa id W e im e r, he wa s he r suc c e ssor in intere st a nd stood in her shoe s whe n he c ontinue d to pursuehe r inte re st from the gove rnm e nt. Tha

t is why a prior pa ne l of this c ourt a

warde d Grossi $87,666 a s re im burse m e nt for “ W e im e r’ s inte re st,” notwithsta

nding thepla in sta

tutory la ngua ge that c rim ina lly

forfe ite d prope rty

“ sha ll not re ve rt to the de fe nda n t,” 21 U.S.C . § 853(h). S e e Unite d State

s v . Grossi , 482 F. App’ x 252, 255 (9th C ir. 2012). Unde r the la

w of the c a se doc trine , we a ga in a d opt the le g a l fic tion tha t onc e Grossi re pa id W e im e r, he wa s he r suc c e ssor in intere st a nd stood in her shoe s. He is the re fore not sta

tutorily pre c l ude d from

re c ove ring fe e s inc urre d in pursuing he r inte re s t. Inste a d, to thee xte nt tha t Grossi, a s W e im e r’ s suc c e ssor, substa n t ia lly

3 1 3 - 1 5 4 8 7pre v a i le d

in a “ c ivil proc e e ding to forfe i t prope rty ,” he is e ntitle d to re a sona ble attorne y s’ fe e s a

nd c o sts. 28 U.S.C . § 2465(b)(1). The bulk of thelitiga

tion to re c ove r W e im e r’ s inte re st did not ta ke pla c e in a

“ c i vil proc e e ding to forfe it prope rty .” Id. R athe r, in Fe b ruary 2005, thec ivil proc e e ding to forfe it prope rty wa s sta y e d pe nding re solution of the c rim ina l a c tion. Subse que nt to Grossi’ s c rim ina l c onvic tion, W e im e r initia te d a nc illa ry proc e e dings unde r 21 U.S.C . § 853(n). Grossi ha s not ide ntifie d any a uthority holding tha

t § 853(n) proc e e d ings a

re “ c ivil proc e e ding[s] to forfe it prope rty .” 28 U.S.C . § 2465(b)(1) (e m

pha sis a dde d). Pla i nly , the y are not. Se e 21 U.S.C . § 853(n) (se tting forth proc e dure s for third pa rtie s to re c ov e r

inte re sts in prope rty subje c t to forfe iture ). And be c a

use § 2465(b) c onstitute s a wa ive r of sove re ign im

m unity , any am biguity in whe the r a

§ 853(n) proc e e ding to e xc lude prope rty from forfe iture m ight c onstitute a proc e e ding to forfe it prope rty unde r § 2465(b) would be c o nstrue d a ga inst Grossi. Se e Ok le v ue ha N ativ e Am. C

hurc h of Haw ., Inc . v . Holde r , 676 F.3d 829, 840 (9th C ir. 2012). In short, Grossi has not c arrie d his burde n of e sta blishing tha

t he is e ntitle d to re c o ve r fe e s inc urre d in proc e e dings anc illa ry to his c rim ina l c onvic tion. Se e Harris v . Maric opa C nty . Supe rior C

ourt , 631 F.3d 963, 971-72 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ [T] he burde n of e sta blishing entitle m e nt to an attorne y s fe e s a

ward lie s sole ly

with thec la im ant.” ). 4 1 3 - 1 5 4 8 7As a re sult, Grossi should only be awarde d those fe e s inc urre d in pursuing W e im e r’ s inte re s t in thec ivil forfe iture a c tion up to the point a t whic h tha

t a c tion wa s sta y e d. B e c a

use Grossi did not ac quire W e i m e r’ s inte re s t until a fte r the c ivil forfe iture a c tion wa s sta

y e d, he is e ntitle d— a ga i n, a s he r suc c e ssor in intere st— to the fe e s tha

t she inc urre d in tha

t c ivil a c tion. To be c le ar, we do not a ward Grossi the fe e s tha

t he him se lf inc urre d

in the unde rly ing forfe iture proc e e dings, nor do we de pa rt from the rule announc e d by

our siste r c irc uits tha

t a third pa rty m ay not re c o ve r fe e s inc urre d in a nc illa ry proc e e dings subse q

ue nt to a c rim ina l forfe iture judgm e nt. W e award Grossi (a s W e im e r) only those fe e s tha

t W e i m e r inc urre d a s a c la im ant in the initia l c ivil proc e e ding. 1 3. Fina lly , be c a

use Grossi is e ntitle d to re c ove r the fe e s tha t W e im e r re a s ona bly inc urre d in the c ivil forfe i ture proc e e d ing, he is a lso e n title d to tha t portion of thefe e s he re a sona bly inc urre d in pursuing c ivil forfe iture fe e s through

1 Unite d State

s v . 92 Bue na Vista Ave nue , 507 U.S. 111 (1993)— a c a se tha t pre c e de d C AFR

A’ s e na c tm e nt by

se ve n y e ars— d oe s not, a s the disse nt c onte nds, pre c lude the re sult we re a c h. In tha t c a se , a plura lity of the Supre m e C ourt re a s one d tha

t a n innoc e nt owne r m ay

re ta in prope rty

purc ha s e d with funds subje c t to c rim ina l forfe i t

ure e ve n if tha

t innoc e nt owne r a c quire d the prope rty a fte r the c rim e giving riseto forfe iture took pla c e . Id. at 116-18, 129. The C ourt ne i the r he ld nor sugge ste d tha

t a n innoc e nt inte re st be c om e s subje c t to forfe i ture if, a s he re , it re ve rts to thec rim i na l de fe nda nt. W e re tha

t the rule , this c ourt obviously c ould not ha

ve awarde d Grossi re c o ve ry of W e im e r’ s innoc e nt inte re st. Se e Grossi , 482 F. App’ x at 255-56. 5 1 3 - 1 5 4 8 7his fe e s m otion be low a nd in this a

ppe a l. Se e In reSo. C

al. Sunbe lt De v e lope rs, Inc
. , 608 F.3d 456, 463 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ In sta t utory fe e c a se s, fe d e ra l c ourts, inc l uding our own, ha

ve uniform ly

he ld tha t tim e spe n t in e sta

b lishing the e ntitle m e nt to a

nd a m ount of thefe e is c om

pe n sa ble .” ). W e re m and to thedistric t c ourt to de te rm ine an a

p propria te fe e award in light of this disposition. 2 Grossi, but not W e im e r, is a

w arde d c osts on a

ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t; RE V E RSE D in par t; and RE M ANDE D.

2 The distric t c ourt should re d uc e or a pportion fe e s to a c c ount for thede gre e of suc c e ss. S

e e 28 U.S.C . § 2465(b)(2)(D) (providing tha t whe re , a s he re , judgm e nt is e nte re d “ i n pa rt for the c la im ant a

n d in pa rt for the Gove rnm e nt, the c ourt sha ll re duc e the award of c osts a nd attorne y fe e s a c c ordingly ” ); se e also W e b b v . Sloan , 330 F.3d 1158, 1168 (9th C ir. 2003) (holding tha t the e xte nt of a pla i ntiff’ s suc c e ss in a

c ivil rights suit m

ust be fa c tore d into the fe e award). 6 1 3 - 1 5 4 8 7Unite d

State s v . Grossi , No. 13-15487 N.R . Sm ith, C i rc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt a nd disse nting in pa

rt: I re spe c tfully

disse nt to pa

rts two a nd thre e of the m a

jority ’ s M e m orandum Disposition. In this c a se , we e x am ine the bre a dth of 28 U.S.C . § 2465(b), a fe de ra l sta tute wa iving thegove rnm e nt’ s sove re ign im m un ity to re q uire the gove rnm e nt to pa y attorne y ’ s fe e s to opposing litiga nts in lim ite d situa t ions. I c annot a gre e with the b roa d c onstruc tion of 28 U.S.C . § 2465(b), e rrone ously c onc luding tha

t it a pplie s in this most unusual situa tion. The C ivil Asse t Forfe iture R e form Ac t of 2000 (“ C AFR

A” ) gove rns c ivil forfe iture s to theUnite d

State s. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 981. C AFR A provide s tha

t a ny re a l prope rty

use d, or inte nde d to be use d, in a ny m anne r or pa

rt, to c om m it, or to fa c i lita t e the c om

m i ssion of, a

fe lony viola

tion of theC ontrolle d Substa n c e s Ac t is subje c t to forfe iture . 21 U.S.C . § 881(a )(7). If a third pa rty c l a im s to be an

“ innoc e nt owne r” of the forfe ite d prope rty , he m ay file a c la im for re turn of his inte re s t. 18 U.S.C . § 983(d); 21 U.S.C . § 853(n)(2). Thec o urt the n de t e rm ine s the third pa rty ’ s a lle ge d owne rship inte re st in theforfe i te d prope rty in a se pa ra te , anc illa ry proc e e ding. Fe d. R . C rim . P. 32.2(c ). C AFR A a lso provide s tha

t, in a ny c ivil proc e e ding to forfe it prope rty unde r fe de ra l la

w in whic h the c la im ant substa ntia lly pre va ils, the Unite d State s sha ll be lia b le for re a sona

b le attorne y

fe e s , 

# FIL ED AUG 26 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

1litiga

tion c osts a

nd inte re s t. 28 U.S.C . § 2465(b)(1)(A)-(C ). Howe ve r, the Unite d Stat e s only

pa y s unde r C AFR

A if: (1) the c la im ant is not the c onvic te d de fe nda nt; and (2) the gove rnm e nt e xpre ssly wa ive d its sove re ign im

m unity . S e e 28 U.S.C . § 2465(a )(2), (b)(2)(B ); Unite d State s v . N ordicVill. Inc
. , 503 U.S. 30, 33-34 (1992). The m a

j ority doe s not a ddre ss whe the r Grossi sa tisfie d both prongs be fore awarding fe e s unde r C AFR A . R athe r, it sum

m arily c onc lude s tha

t Grossi

“ substa n tia lly pre va ile d in a ‘ c i vil proc e e ding to forfe i t prope rty ,’ [and is the re fore ] . . . e ntitle d to re a sona ble attorne y s’ fe e s a

nd c osts.” If we a

pply the la w to the fa c ts of this c a se , Grossi fa ils to e sta blish gove rnm e n t lia

bility unde r C AFR A. First, a c la im an t is not e ntitle d to fe e s unde r C AFR A“ if the c la i m ant is c onvic te d of a

c rim e for whic h

the inte re st of the c la im a n t in theprope rty

wa s subje c t to forfe iture unde r a Fe de ra l c rim ina l forfe i ture la w .” 28 U.S.C . § 2465(b)(2)(B ). Pre viously , this c ourt he ld tha t “ W e im e r’ s inte re st [in the prope rty ] wa s e xtinguishe d ” whe n “ Grossi pa id W e im e r ba c k” in De c e m be r of 2006. Unite d State

s v . Grossi , 482 F. App’ x 252, 255 (9th C ir. 2012). Thus, W e im e r ha d

no inte re st le ft in the prope rty at the c onc lusion of the

anc illa ry proc e e dings. Se e id . Eve n unde r the le ga l fic tion im pose d by this c ourt (tha

t Grossi e quita

bly wa s e ntitle d to re c e ive the am ount re pre se nting W e im e r’ s

2pre v ious inte re st), the m a jority c ite s no support for its proposition tha t our im pose d le ga l fic tion a lso a llows Grossi to re c oup fe e s unde r C AFR A. The sta

tute c le arly sta te s othe rwise . The pla in la ngua ge of the sta

tute pre c lude s a

c la im ant from re c o ve ring a

ny fe e s if he wa s “ c onvic te d of a c rim e for whic h the i nte re st of the c laimant in the prope rty

wa s s ubje c t to [c rim i na l] forfe iture unde r a Fe de ra l c rim ina l forfe iture la

w.” 28 U.S.C . § 2465(b)(2)(B ) (e m pha sis a dde d). The pla in te xt of C AFR

A ba rs fe e awards if the c la im ant is a c onvic te d de fe nda

nt. Se e also 21 U.S.C . § 853(h) (providing tha t “ [a ] ny prope rty right or inte re st not e xe rc isa ble by , or tra nsfe ra ble for va lue to, the Unite d State s sha l l e xpire and shall not rev e rt to the de fe ndant , nor sha ll the de

fe ndant or a ny pe rson a c ting in c o nc e rt with him or on his be ha lf be e ligible to purc haseforfe i te d prope rty at a ny sa le he ld by

the Unite d State s” (e m

pha s is a dde d)). At Grossi’ s se nte nc ing, his e ntire inte re st in the M arke t Stre e t

prope rty wa s orde re d c rim ina l ly

forfe ite d unde r fe d e ra l la

w. Afte r the p re lim ina

ry orde r of forfe iture wa s issue d he re in, two c l a im ants a sse rte d a n innoc e nt-owne r de fe nse a s to theM arke t Stre e t prope rty (W e im e r and De l M a sso). The gove rnm e nt quic kly se ttle d with De l M a sso a nd like ly would have se ttle d

with W e im e r, ha d Grossi not e xtinguishe d W e im e r’ s “ innoc e nt owne r” inte re st in theprope rty by re pa y ing to W e im e r (a fte r the pre lim ina ry orde r of forfe iture ) the m one y

she ha d pre viously

loa n e d him to purc ha se the prope rty . 3The re is no dispute that W e im e r’ s inte re st in theM arke t Stre e t prope rty wa s e xtinguishe d upon re c e iving thefull re pa ym e nt of he r loa

n. Thus, thepoint a

t whic h Grossi fully

re pa i d W e im e r, W e im e r’ s inte re st in theprope rty be c am e Grossi’s intere

st in the prope rty . Eve n though this c o urt de te rm ine d tha t e quita bly Grossi wa s e ntitle d to re c oup the loa n pa ym e nts m a de to W e i m e r, tha t de te rm i nation ne ve r sugge ste d tha t his intere st in theprope rty (a c quire d a fte r re pa y ing W e im e r) should not be subje c t to the“ c onvic t e d de fe nda nt” ba r to c olle c ting fe e s unde r C AFR A. Inde e d, the Supre m e C ourt’ s holding in Unite d State s v . 92 Bue n a Vista Av e . , 507 U.S. 111 (1993) (“ B u e na Vista ” ) insists tha

t owne rship intere sts in a

forfe i te d pie c e of prope rty m ust be de te rm ine d at the c onc lusion of the

an c illa ry proc e e dings, not a

t the tim e of the initia l forfe iture . In Bue na Vista , the Supre m e C ourt re a sone d tha t ne ithe r the sta

tutory e m bodim e nt of the re lation ba c k doc trine nor the c om m o n la w doc trine m ake s the gove rnm e nt a

n owne r of prope rty

be fore forfe iture ha s be e n de c re e d. 507 U.S. a t 124-25. 1 The C ourt note d tha t the tim e be twe e n the pre lim i na ry orde r of forfe iture and the fina l orde r of forfe iture a llows a distric t c ourt tim e to de te rm ine c la im s of

1 The m a

jority c orre c tly note s Bue na Vista pre c e de d the pa ssa ge of C AFR A. Howe v e r, this is of no c onse q ue nc e a s to our issue . In Bue na Vista , the C ourt e sta

blishe d the prope r a

pplic ation of there lation ba c k doc trine whe n de te rm i ning c la im s of owne rship a nd ve sting of title

in prope rty

subje c t to forfe iture . This is still binding pre c e de nt. 4owne rship a

nd prioritie s of inte re st vis-a -vis the gove rnm e nt a n d third-pa

rty c la im ants. Id ; 21 U.S.C . § 853(n). TheC ourt c onc lude d tha t only whe n the gove rnm e nt obta ins a

judgm e nt of forfe iture doe s the ve sting of its title in the prope rty re late ba c k to the m om e nt of the offe nse . Bue n a Vista , 507 U.S. a t 126. Thus, until a

fina l de c re e of forfe iture is e nte re d , “ som e one e lse owns the prope rty ,” and a

nothe r party

m a y a c q uire an inte re st in theprope rty . 2 Id . In this c a se , it is not dispute d tha t W e im e r’ s owne rship inte re st in theM arke t Stre e t prope rty , tha

t e xiste d at t

he tim e the pre lim i na

ry orde r of forfe iture wa s issue d, wa s e xtinguishe d prior to Grossi’ s se nte nc ing a nd the c onc lusion of the anc illa ry he arings. Grossi, on the

othe r hand, during this sa m e tim e pe riod a c quire d a

n a dditiona l inte re st in theM arke t Stre e t prope rty (W e im e r’ s). Unde r the h olding of Bue na Vista , a c ourt m ust e va luate a third pa

rty ’ s owne rship intere st at the tim e the de fe n da

n t is se nte nc e d a

nd the an c illa

ry he arings a

re c onc l ude d. At that tim e , re ga

rdle ss of whe the r this c ourt c la ssifie s the a c quire d inte re st a s

2 The m a

jority argue s tha

t the “ C ourt ne ithe r he ld nor sugge s te d tha t a n innoc e nt inte re s t be c om e s subje c t to forfe iture if, a s he re , it re ve rts to thec rim ina l de fe nda n t.” Howe ve r, the m a

jority fa i ls to indic ate why

the C ourt would ha

ve e ve n re a c he d suc h a

holding: such fa c ts we re not a t issue in B u e na Vista . Im porta n tly , the m a

jority c ite s no sta

tutory ba sis a llowing a

c onvic te d de fe nda

nt to a c quire any

inte re st (inc luding a

n innoc e nt owne r inte re st) in forfe ita ble prope rty . This c ourt ba se d its pre vious de te rm ination (tha t Grossi wa s e ntitle d to the am ount re pre se nting W e im e r’ s inte re st) on e quity . 5Grossi’ s or W e im e r’ s, Grossi owne d it a n d Grossi’ s e ntire owne rship inte re st wa s forfe ite d in the fina l orde r. C le arly the n, Grossi is pre c l ude d from re c ove ring fe e s unde r C AFR

A, be c a use Grossi wa s “ c onvic t e d of a c rim e for whic h the inte re st of the c la i m ant in theprope rty wa s subje c t to forfe iture .” Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2465(b)(2)(B ). C ontra

ry to the pla in la

n gua g e of the sta

t ute , the m a

jority c ite s no a uthority for its position tha

t this sta tute doe s not a

pply to a ll of a

c onvic te d de fe nda n t’ s owne rship intere st in theprope rty , tha t prope rty a c q uire d by a de fe nda n t during this tim

e pe riod is e xc lude d from c onside ration whe n ba

rring a c onvic te d de fe nda

nt from se e king fe e s unde r C AFR A, a n d tha t a c o nvic te d de fe nda n t c an be a c c orde d innoc e nt owne r status a s to a n owne rship inte re st he a c quire s in theforfe ita

b l e prope rty during this tim e pe riod. Se c ond, “ [e ] x c e pt to thee xte nt it ha s wa i ve d its im m unity , the Gove rnm e nt is im m une from c la im s for attorne y ’ s fe e s .” Ruc k e lshaus v . Sie r

ra C lub , 463 U.S. 680, 685 (1983). Se c tion 2465(b) c onstitute s a wa ive r of sove re ign im

m unity and

“ [w] a ive rs of the Gove rnm e nt’ s sove re ign im m unity , to be e ffe c tive , m

ust be une quivoc a lly

e xpre s se d.” Unite d State s v . N ordicVill. Inc
. , 503 U.S. 30, 33 (1992) (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). Additionally , wa ive rs m ust be c onstrue d na

rrowly and a lwa y s in fa vor of the sove re ign. Id . at 34. In this c a se , Grossi a rgue s tha t, e ve n though hevolunta rily e xtinguishe d W e im e r’ s inte re st in 6the p rope rty , he should still be a ble to c olle c t fe e s unde r C AFR A. The re is a bsolute ly no support for this position. Inde e d, our siste r c irc uits ha ve de te rm ine d tha

t e ve n a pre va i ling third-party in a n anc illa ry proc e e ding pursua

nt to 21 U.S.C . § 853(n) is not entitle d to fe e s unde r C AFR

A. In Unite d State

s v . Mose r , 586 F.3d 1089 (8th C ir. 2009), the Eighth C irc uit he ld tha

t e ve n though m a

ny of the pre va iling third-pa rty pe titione r’ s argum e nts in fa

vor of a fe e award we re pe rsua sive , ultim ate ly it he ld tha

t “ [t] he argum e nts for a

nd a ga inst pe rm itting a

pre va iling § 853(n) petitione r to re c e ive attorne y s’ fe e s from

the gove rnm e nt [we re ] too c lose ly ba la nc e d . . . to c onc lude that C ongre ss’ s wa ive r of sove re ign im m unity c le arly and une quivoc a l ly

a p plie s.” Id . at 1090. Simila

rly , in Unite d State

s v . N o lasc o , 354 F. App’ x 676 (3d C ir. 2009), the Third C irc uit he ld tha t, e ve n though § 853(n) proc e e d ings a re “ c ivil” for purpose s of § 2465(b), the y are not proc e e dings “ to forfe it prope rty ” for fe e -shifting purpose s. Id . at 679-80. TheThird C irc uit re a sone d tha t “ Se c tion 853(n) a nc illa ry proc e e dings e xc lude prope rty from forfe iture and do not ‘ forfe it prope rty ’ a s re quire d by Se c tion 2465(b).” Id . at 680. Thus, the se c a se s indic ate tha t e ve n if W e im e r we re prose c uting thec la im , she would not be

e ntitle d to fe e s unde r C AFR A. The m a

jority c annot suc c e ssfully distinguish this c a se from the a bove c a se s, a s a ll involve d a nc illa ry proc e e dings 7pursua

nt to 21 U.S.C . § 853(n). C e rta i nly the n, the re is no e vide nc e tha t C ongre ss c le arly and une quivoc a lly

inte nde d to wa ive the gove rnm e nt’ s sove re ign im m unity a s to a ttorne y ’ s fe e s for a c onvic te d de fe nda nt who a c quire s a

n a dditiona l inte re st in the forfe ite d prope rty a fte r the issua nc e of the pre lim i na

ry orde r of forfe iture . The distric t c ourt should be a ffirm e d.

8