United States v. 2020-02-10 | 18-56570 | USA V. GREGORY SPEROW | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GREGORY FRANK SPEROW,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-56570

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01186-VAP-JEM

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GREGORY FRANK SPEROW,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-30035

D.C. No. 1:06-cr-00126-BLW-2

MEMORANDUM

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED

FEB 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-56570 & 19-30035
Submitted February 4, 2020
**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

In Appeal No. 18-56570, Gregory Frank Sperow appealed from the district
court’s dismissal of his motion for return of property under Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 41(g). In his reply brief, however, he requested to withdraw
the appeal. We treat this request as a motion for voluntary dismissal. So treated,
the motion is granted and this appeal is dismissed. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b).
In Appeal No. 19-30035, Sperow challenges the district court’s final order of
forfeiture for the Mount Pleasant property. The government contends that this
appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant
has waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205
(9th Cir. 2011). The terms of the appeal waiver in Sperow’s plea agreement
unambiguously encompass the claims raised in this appeal. See id. The record
belies Sperow’s contentions that the district court modified the terms of his plea
agreement to exclude the Mount Pleasant property from forfeiture and that the
government breached the plea agreement. The record further belies Sperow’s
contention that he “provided complete and truthful cooperation” sufficient to
trigger the government’s obligation not to seek final forfeiture of the Mount

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

3 18-56570 & 19-30035
Pleasant property to the extent it was obtained through legitimate means.
Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of Sperow’s challenge to the district
court’s final order of forfeiture, but instead dismiss pursuant to the valid waiver.
See id. at 1207.
Appeal Nos. 18-56570 & 19-30055: DISMISSED.