USA V. STEPHEN KANG, No. 16-50161 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 9 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-50161 D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00478-GW-1 v. MEMORANDUM* STEPHEN YOUNG KANG, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 7, 2018** Pasadena, California Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,*** District Judge. Stephen Kang appeals the district court’s decision to seal a restitution order. Because Kang signed a valid appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. * 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 Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1. Kang’s plea agreement waived his right to appeal “the amount and terms of any restitution order.” One of the restitution order’s terms provides for sealing. We analyze plea agreements under contract law, United States v. De la Fuente, 8 F.3d 1333, 1337 (9th Cir. 1993), and a contract term providing for confidentiality is generally enforceable, see Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Mower, 219 F.3d 1069, 1073–76 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Term, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining terms as “[p]rovisions that define an agreement’s scope; conditions or stipulations”). 2. Kang argues that because the waiver is located in a section of the plea agreement entitled “limited mutual waiver of appeal of sentence,” it applies only to his sentence. That argument fails, as the waiver expressly covers the “terms of the restitution order.” APPEAL DISMISSED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.