United States of America v. Lorenzo Elias Mendez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LORENZO ELIAS MENDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-914
D.C. No. 1:18-cr-02037-SAB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Stanley A. Bastian, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Lorenzo Elias Mendez appeals pro se from the district court’s orders
granting the government’s motion for entry of a final order of forfeiture and
denying Mendez’s objections to the final order 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
FEB 29 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-914
The preliminary order of forfeiture became final as to Mendez when he was
sentenced and did not appeal the order. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(A); United
States v. Bennett, 147 F.3d 912, 914 (9th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Mendez lacked
standing to challenge the final order of forfeiture, which determined ownership of
the forfeited property only as between the government and any third parties. See
Fed. R. Crim. P 32.2(c) (explaining process for entry of a final order of forfeiture
after adjudication of any third-party rights in the property); 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). As a result, the district court
properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Mendez’s objections.
See Bennett, 147 F.3d at 914 (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to
consider defendant’s objections to the final order of forfeiture because the
preliminary order of forfeiture, which the defendant did not appeal, was final as to
the defendant).
Mendez’s motions to correct his opening and reply briefs are granted. All
other pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --