United States of America v. Christopher Close

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CLOSE,
Defendant,
and
LOST CREEK TRUST,
Claimant-Appellant.
No. 18-30122
D.C. No.
2:03-cr-00069-EJL-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 19, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges, and ROYAL,*** District Judge.
* 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).
*** The Honorable C. Ashley Royal, United States District Judge for the
Middle District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAY 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Appellant Lost Creek Trust appeals the district court’s final order in an
ancillary forfeiture proceeding related to the criminal case of Defendant
Christopher Close. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. Lost Creek Trust lacks standing to challenge the final order of forfeiture.
We recently affirmed the district court’s ruling that Lost Creek Trust failed to
prove it had a legal interest in the Winch Road Property pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §
853(n). United States v. Close, 755 Fed. App’x 626, 628–29 (9th Cir. 2018).
Without having established a legal interest in the property, Lost Creek Trust has no
standing to challenge the final order of forfeiture.
2. Lost Creek Trust moves to substitute Close, the criminal defendant, as
appellant. Close’s “right, title and interest in said property” was ordered forfeited
in March 2005, and the forfeiture order became final as to Close shortly thereafter,
at sentencing. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(A). As the criminal defendant,
Close does not have standing to challenge the forfeiture order in the ancillary
proceedings. 21 § U.S.C. 853(n)(2) (referring to “[a]ny person, other than the
defendant”). We therefore deny the motion to substitute.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --