United States v. Approximately $658,830.00 in U.S. Currency , 563 F. App'x 579 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 17 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-17250
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00967-MCE-
KJN
ROBERT D. GIBSON,
Claimant - Appellant, MEMORANDUM*
v.
APPROXIMATELY $658,830.00 IN U.S.
CURRENCY,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Robert D. Gibson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
*
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).
in a civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) for approximately
$658,830.00 in U.S. currency that was seized from a package. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, United States v.
$133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 637 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for the government
because Gibson failed to establish some evidence showing that he had a colorable
interest in the property. See id. at 638 (“[I]n a civil forfeiture action, a claimant’s
bare assertion of an ownership or possessory interest, in the absence of some other
evidence, is not enough to survive a motion for summary judgment.”). Contrary to
Gibsons’s contention, a shipping order for the package without his name on it is
not “some evidence of ownership.” Id. Further, we do not consider any
documents that are not part of the district court record. See Kirshner v. Uniden
Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988).
Gibson’s contentions concerning alleged judicial bias are unsupported by the
record. Gibson’s contentions concerning the government’s statement of
undisputed facts and his need for an evidentiary hearing are similarly unpersuasive.
Gibson’s requests to stay this appeal, filed on September 5 and 20, 2013, are
denied. His pending requests for judicial notice are also denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-17250