United States v. Dragomir Taskov

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 17, 2019
• Docket: 17-10524
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10524

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00217-RFB-1

v. MEMORANDUM* DRAGOMIR TASKOV, a.k.a. Drago,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2019**

Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Dragomir Taskov appeals pro se from the district court’s order substituting

and forfeiting assets pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Taskov contends that he did not receive notice of the forfeiture or an

* 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). opportunity to challenge it. He also contends that the property subject to the

forfeiture was unconstitutionally seized and that the statutes of conviction in his

case do not support forfeiture. Taskov waived these arguments by failing to raise

them in his prior appeal from the judgment ordering forfeiture. See United States

v. Nagra, 147 F.3d 875, 882 (9th Cir. 1998). To the extent that Taskov challenges

the district court’s substitution and forfeiture order, the district court properly

determined that the government satisfied the requirements of Rule 32.2 and 21

U.S.C. § 853(p).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-10524