United States of America v. Abhijit Prasad

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ABHIJIT PRASAD,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-1901
D.C. No. 3:18-cr-00368-CRB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Abhijit Prasad appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
“ancillary petition” opposing the government’s 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) notice of
forfeiture. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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 4 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-1901
The district court correctly found that Prasad lacked standing to file a
petition under § 832(n)(2), which governs the rights of third parties “other than the
defendant.” The preliminary order of forfeiture became final as to Prasad when he
was sentenced and this court affirmed the order on direct appeal. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(A); United States v. Prasad, 18 F.4th 313 (9th Cir. 2021).
Thus, Prasad’s interest in the property had been extinguished by the time the
government issued the § 853(n) notice of forfeiture, and Prasad had no standing to
challenge that notice. See United States v. Real Property Located at 5208 Los
Franciscos Way, Los Angeles, Cal., 385 F.3d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating
that standing in a forfeiture action depends on whether the claimant has an interest
in the property); United States v. Bennett, 147 F.3d 912, 914 (9th Cir. 1998)
(holding that, because the preliminary order of forfeiture became final as to the
defendant when he was sentenced and did not appeal the order, he had no standing
to challenge the later final order of forfeiture resolving third-party claims).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --