United States v. Charles W. Roth, Claimant-Appellant

Good Law
912 F.2d 1131
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 15, 199089-16694California1,661 words

Opinion

Opinion

Norris, J.

This is an interlocutory appeal of a pretrial order restraining assets issued by the district court under the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 (the Act), 21 U.S.C. § 853 . The government argues that the order is not appealable because it is interlocutory. We hold that the order is appeal-able under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1) because it is a preliminary injunction. On the merits, we affirm the order.

I

Appellant Charles Roth, who allegedly participated in a large-scale marijuana distribution enterprise, was indicted for various drug related offenses., The indictment alleged that Roth had acquired an asset, 1490 Squaw Valley Road, Olympic Valley, CA, as a result of his drug trafficking and money laundering, which was subject to forfeiture under the Act.

After the indictment was unsealed, the district court granted the government’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) freezing the proceeds from the sale of the property pending trial. A hearing was then set by the district court, as required by United States v. Crozier, 777 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir.1985) to determine whether the TRO should ripen into a preliminary injunction. Following the hearing, the district court…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.