United States of America v. Dragomir Taskov, a.k.a. Drago

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DRAGOMIR TASKOV, a.k.a. Drago,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10524
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00217-RFB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Dragomir Taskov appeals pro se from the district court’s order substituting
and forfeiting assets pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Taskov contends that he did not receive notice of the forfeiture or an
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10524
opportunity to challenge it. He also contends that the property subject to the
forfeiture was unconstitutionally seized and that the statutes of conviction in his
case do not support forfeiture. Taskov waived these arguments by failing to raise
them in his prior appeal from the judgment ordering forfeiture. See United States
v. Nagra, 147 F.3d 875, 882 (9th Cir. 1998). To the extent that Taskov challenges
the district court’s substitution and forfeiture order, the district court properly
determined that the government satisfied the requirements of Rule 32.2 and 21
U.S.C. § 853(p).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --