USA V. LOST CREEK TRUST, No. 18-30122 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 9, 2019.

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 13 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-30122 D.C. No. 2:03-cr-00069-EJL-1 v. MEMORANDUM* CHRISTOPHER CLOSE, Defendant, and LOST CREEK TRUST, Claimant-Appellant. 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. 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

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.