Opinion ID: 676417
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Robin Caldwell's Claim

Text: 9 Robin Caldwell argues that she has a community property interest in the subject property. She contends that the quitclaim deed she signed was procured by fraud, and that she is entitled to the property as an innocent owner under Sec. 881(a)(6). 1 10 The district court found that Robin Caldwell's asserted interest was derivative of her husband's, and because Michael Caldwell never had a legitimate interest in the property, due to the relation-back doctrine, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(h), Robin's asserted interest is void. Robin Caldwell contends the court's reasoning was rejected by the intervening Supreme Court decision in United States v. 92 Buena Vista Avenue, 113 S.Ct. 1126 (1993), and that we must therefore reverse. 11 However, we may affirm the district court on any ground supported by the record. United States v. Washington, 969 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1945 (1993). We find that Robin Caldwell has failed to provide any evidence that she would qualify for the innocent owner defense or was unaware of her husband's drug trafficking activities. 2 By failing to set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue on this claim, Robin Caldwell failed to defend the government's motion for summary judgment. 12 The district court judgment is AFFIRMED.