22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4f1,MEMORANDUM The government timely appeals from the district court’s entry of a criminal judgment against Defendant Elena Woodard. The government argues that the district court erred in ordering criminal forfeiture of only $100 instead of the $200,000 to which Woodard agreed. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Casey, 444 F.3d 1071, 1073 (9th Cir.2006), we vacate and remand with instructions. The district court erred for the reasons explained in United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235 , 2011 WL 5110116 (9th Cir.2011) (decided this date). Because the amount of the total proceeds of Woodard’s crime is unclear from the record, we remand so that the district court may follow the procedure outlined in Newman . If the district court has no reason to question the accuracy of the stipulated amount of $200,000, it shall enter a criminal forfeiture money judgment in that amount. If the district court has cause to question the accuracy of that amount, it shall take evidence and enter a criminal forfeiture money judgment in the amount of the proceeds of Woodard’s crime, not to exceed $200,000. VACATED and REMANDED with instructions. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T51e,

MEMORANDUM

The government timely appeals from the district court’s entry of a criminal judgment against Defendant Elena Woodard. The government argues that the district court erred in ordering criminal forfeiture of only $100 instead of the $200,000 to which Woodard agreed. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Casey, 444 F.3d 1071, 1073 (9th Cir.2006), we vacate and remand with instructions.

The district court erred for the reasons explained in United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235 , 2011 WL 5110116 (9th Cir.2011) (decided this date). Because the amount of the total proceeds of Woodard’s crime is unclear from the record, we remand so that the district court may follow the procedure outlined in Newman . If the district court has no reason to question the accuracy of the stipulated amount of $200,000, it shall enter a criminal forfeiture money judgment in that amount. If the district court has cause to question the accuracy of that amount, it shall take evidence and enter a criminal forfeiture money judgment in the amount of the proceeds of Woodard’s crime, not to exceed $200,000.

VACATED and REMANDED with instructions.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.