FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 09-55735
09-55748
Plaintiff - Appellee,
D.C. Nos. 2:00-cv-10590-SVW-
v. SGL
2:00-cv-10591-SVW-
ANDREW HANTZIS, SGL
Claimant - Appellant, MEMORANDUM *
and
$244,110.92 US CURRENCY, Real
Property Located at 1812 258th Place; et
al.,
Defendants,
and
WILMA BLOEMHOF,
Claimant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated cases, Andrew Hantzis, a federal prisoner, appeals pro
se from the district court’s judgments in the government’s civil forfeiture actions.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the
district court’s finding that a party consented to a settlement agreement, Ahern v.
Cent. Pac. Freight Lines, 846 F.2d 47, 48 (9th Cir. 1988), and for an abuse of
discretion the district court’s decision to enforce a settlement agreement, Doi v.
Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court found that Hantzis’s former counsel had his authorization
to enter into an agreement with the government stipulating that the defendant
properties were subject to forfeiture. Considering the record as a whole, the
district court’s finding is not clearly erroneous. See Ahern, 846 F.2d at 49; see also
Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985) (“Where there are two
permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be
clearly erroneous.”). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 09-55735/09-55748
enforcing the stipulation and entering judgment for the government. See Doi, 276
F.3d at 1140.
Hantzis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-55735/09-55748