FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-16370
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00105-DGC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LEONARDO CORNEJO-REYNOSO,
Claimant - Appellant,
And
$2,164,341.00 IN US CURRENCY,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 21, 2015**
San Francisco, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: BLACK,*** CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Leonardo Cornejo-Reynoso appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of
the Government in this civil forfeiture action regarding $2,164,431.00 in United
States currency. We affirm.
The district court did not err in denying Cornejo’s motion to permit him to
appear for a deposition remotely from Mexico by a video conference. “A district
court has wide discretion to establish the time and place of depositions.” Hyde &
Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994). A video deposition may have
been ordered in United States v. Li, 2013 WL 6729895 (D. Ariz. December 19,
2013), but that decision was based on different facts and was not binding precedent
for other district courts, in any extent. In this case, the Government secured parole
documents for Cornejo to re-enter the United States on multiple occasions, but he
refused to avail himself of the opportunity to appear.
The district court did not err in sanctioning Cornejo when the court “did not
make [it] as easy as possible for him to be deposed.” Hyde & Drath, 24 F.3d at
1167. “The Court of Appeals . . . will overturn a [district court imposed] sanction
only [when] it was clearly outside the acceptable range of sanctions.” Rio Props.,
***
The Honorable Susan H. Black, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
2
Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir. 2002). Sanctions are
appropriate where the violation is “due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the
party.” United States v. Kahaluu Constr. Co., Inc., 857 F.2d 600, 603 (9th Cir.
1988). The record is clear and undisputed that Cornejo did not attend his court-
ordered deposition. Prohibiting Cornejo from submitting testimony was within the
acceptable range of Rule 37 sanctions.
The district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the
Government. The combination of evidence, including the one-way Budget rental
truck agreement, the large amount of cash and the way it was packaged, and the
alert to the cash by a narcotics canine, all demonstrated a substantial connection to
drug trafficking.
When the burden shifted to Cornejo, he failed to demonstrate a lawful source
of the currency. While at one time he may have possessed $2.8 million lawfully
from the sale years before of the Chula Vista apartment complex, he filed for
bankruptcy just one year prior to the seizure and swore, under penalty of perjury,
that he possessed only $37,775 in personal property and approximately $1,500 in
cash.
AFFIRMED.
3