United States of America v. Daniel Oberholtzer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL OBERHOLTZER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-30147
D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00016-RAJ-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 8, 2016
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Oberholtzer appeals the imposition of a personal money judgment
against him under criminal forfeiture statutes, after he pled guilty to conspiracy to
traffic in counterfeit goods. Oberholtzer asserts that: (1) the district court lacked
FILED
JAN 04 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1

-- 1 of 3 --

the authority to impose a personal money judgment against him; (2) the personal
money judgment was an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (3)
the district court erroneously calculated the forfeiture amount; (4) the personal
money judgment violated the ex post facto clause because it was based on activity
that occurred prior to Congress passing the criminal forfeiture statues; (5) he was
deprived of his right to procedural due process due to the district court’s
application of the expedited forfeiture procedures under Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 32.2(b)(1); and (6) the district court abused its discretion in denying his
motions for a continuance of the forfeiture hearing.
The district court had authority to enter a personal money judgment against
Oberholtzer. See United States v. Casey, 444 F.3d 1071, 1073-75 (9th Cir. 2006).
Oberholtzer argues that Casey should be overturned, but this panel may not
overturn binding precedent absent a “clearly irreconcilable” Supreme Court
decision. Rodriguez v. AT & T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.
2013) (citation omitted).
Oberholtzer’s remaining claims lack merit. See United States v. Newman,
659 F.3d 1235, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that a personal money judgment is
2

-- 2 of 3 --

a type of criminal forfeiture); United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1237-38
(9th Cir. 2009) (holding that a district court acted within its discretion when it
denied a continuance because the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice);
United States v. Hamilton, 208 F.3d 1165, 1169 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that due
process requires only “reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard”) (citation
omitted); United States v. Ladum, 141 F.3d 1328, 1348-49 (9th Cir. 1998)
(upholding a criminal forfeiture against an Eighth Amendment challenge); United
States v. Frank, 956 F.2d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 1991), as amended (holding that a
defendant fails to demonstrate clear error “by pointing to conflicting evidence in
the record”); United States v. Inafuku, 938 F.2d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 1991)
(upholding application of the law “as it exists at the end of [a] conspiracy” against
an ex post facto clause challenge) (citations omitted).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --