United States v. 2020-04-21 | 19-55104 | GB CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC V. JEFFREY HESTON | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GB CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY GLENN HESTON,

Claimant-Appellant,

and

S/V GLORI B, a 1977 Sailing Vessel of
Approximately 27-Feet in Length, U.S.C.G.
Official No. 598405 and All of Her Engines,
Tackle Accessories, Equipment, Furnishings
and Appurtenances, in rem,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-55104

D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00312-WQH-
AGS

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

*
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

APR 21 2020

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

2 19-55104
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Jeffrey Glenn Heston appeals pro se from the district court’s January 22,
2019 order granting plaintiff GB Capital Holdings, LLC’s (“GB Capital”) motion
for an order of sale of the sailing vessel Glori B in GB Capital’s admiralty action in
rem. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
court’s conclusions of law and for clear error the district court’s findings of fact.
Crowley Marine Servs. v. Maritrans, Inc., 530 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2008).
We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the Supplemental
Admiralty and Maritime Claims Rules. United States v. $11,500.00 in U.S.
Currency, 710 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
The district court did not err by granting GB Capital’s motion for an order of
sale because it properly concluded that GB Capital had met the requirements of
Supplemental Rule E(9)(a) and its factual findings were not clearly erroneous. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. E(9)(a)(i)(A)-(C) (the court may order all or part of the
property sold if the property is liable to deterioration by being detained in custody
pending the action, the expense of keeping the property is excessive or
disproportionate, or there is unreasonable delay in securing release of the
property).
We reject as meritless Heston’s contentions regarding the district court’s
alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

3 19-55104
Heston’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 22) is denied.
GB Capital’s request for sanctions, set forth in the answering brief, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.