From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. REAL PROPERTY, 25445 VIA DONA CHRISTA

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 12, 1999
170 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 1999)

Opinion

No. 95-56352

March 12, 1999.

Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

Pursuant to G.O. § 3.2.g, Judge Reinhardt has been drawn as the replacement for Judge Gibson, who has retired from the court.


The opinion filed March 3, 1998 [ 138 F.3d 403], is amended as follows:

On slip opinion page 1734, under subheading C. [ 138 F.3d at 409] substitute the following, before text that reads, "Therefore, the law of the case doctrine. . . ."

Claimant's other assertions are not reviewable. In an unpublished decision by a previous panel, this court held that Claimant's due process argument was waived. Claimant asserts now that the panel's holding was erroneous because he raised his due process issue to the previous panel in his opening brief on appeal. He is correct about when he first raised this issue, but wrong about the effect of his failure timely to have raised it in the district court. In this case, we deem his failure at the district court level to be a waiver of the issue notwithstanding his untimely attempt to bring it to the previous panel's attention on appeal. See A-1 Ambulance Service Inc. v. County of Monterey, 90 F.3d 333, 337 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that issues not raised in the trial court may be deemed waived).

With this amendment, the petition for rehearing, and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. REAL PROPERTY, 25445 VIA DONA CHRISTA

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 12, 1999
170 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 1999)
Case details for

U.S. v. REAL PROPERTY, 25445 VIA DONA CHRISTA

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 12, 1999

Citations

170 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 1999)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Plunk

We review de novo the district court's interpretation of federal forfeiture law. United States v. 25445 Via…

U.S. v. Parker

Consequently, Parker's Rule 33 argument is foreclosed because he failed to raise it prior to the district…