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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. ALLEN FONG, AKA John Fujim oto, AKA Ste ve Fujim oto, AKA Je ff Law, AKA Da vid Le e , AKA M ay Le e , AKA Ste ve Nguy e n, AKA Sa

kura Susa , AKA Je ff W oo, De fe nda

n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 19-10254

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-00527-R S-1
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 ic ha rd Se e borg, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 10, 2020 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
DEC 14 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : W . FLETC HER and IKUTA, C i rc u it Judge s, a nd SC HREIER , *** Distric t Judge
. Appe lla

nt Alle n Fong c h a lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s forfe iture orde r,
c la im ing tha

t: (1) the forfe iture orde r viola te d H one y c utt v . Unite d State

s , 137 S.C t
. 1626 (2017); (2) the

forfe iture orde r viola

te d the C onstitution’ s Exc e ssive Fine s C la use ; (3) the distric t c ourt la c ke d sta tutory a uthority to im pose an i n pe rsonam forfe iture m one y

judgm e nt; a

nd (4) the fa c ts trigge ring them an datory forfe iture should ha ve be e n found by

a jury . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291
and we a ffirm
. The forfe iture orde r doe s not viola te Hone y c u tt . The gove rnm e nt pre se nte d suffic i e nt e vide nc e to prove by a pre ponde ranc e tha

t Fong pe rsona l ly

obta ine d
a bout one -third of the c onspira c y ’ s proc e e d s. The distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings
a s to the c orre s ponding a

m ounts a re not c le arly

e rrone ous. 1 Se e Hone

y c utt , 137 S.C t. at 1632-33.

* * * The Honora

ble Ka re n E. Sc hre ie r, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of South Da

kota , sitting by

de signa tion.
1 Fong a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by fa i ling to hold a

n e vide ntia

ry he aring re ga

rding the fa c tua l ba sis for the distric t c ourt’ s c a lc u lation of the forfe iture am ount. Any

e rror would be ha

rm le ss, be c a

use the distric t c ourt ha d pre v iously

he ld a n e vide n tia

ry he aring to de te rm ine the proc e e ds of the e ntire c onspira c y . And a fte r re m and, Fong pre s e nte d no ne w e vide n c e on the issue , a nd the c ourt m a d e a

re a sona ble e stim at e of the fra c tion of theproc e e ds obta ine d by Fong. 2The forfe iture orde r doe s not viola te the Exc e ssive Fine s c la use be c a u se the forfe iture is not “ grossly

disproportional to the gravity of [the ] de fe nda

nt’ s offe nse .” Unite d State

s v . Bajak ajian , 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998). The forfe iture
am ount in this c a se wa s le ss tha n ha lf the a

uthoriz e d sta

t utory fine a llowa

ble
. Se e Unite d State s v . Be e c roft , 825 F.3d 991, 1001 (9th C ir. 2016). As Fong a c k

nowle dge s, his a

rgum e nts tha

t the distric t c ourt la c ke d a uthority to im pose an in pe rsonam forfe iture m one y judgm e nt a

nd tha t the c ourt viola

te d the Sixth Am e ndm e nt by

finding thefa c ts trigge ring m andatory c rim ina l forfe iture
are b oth fore c lose d by

this c irc uit’ s pre c e de nt. Se e Unite d State s v . N e jad, 933 F.3d 1162, 1165 (9th C ir. 2019) (re a ffirm ing pre

- Hone y c utt c a se s a

uthoriz ing in pe rsonam forfe iture m one y judgm e nts); Unite d State s v . Phillips , 704 F.3d 754, 769–71 (9th C ir. 2012) (re je c ting a rgum e nt tha

t a jury m ust de te rm ine forfe iture issue ). AFFIRM E D
.

3