UNITED STATES v. SPEROW (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

In Appeal No. 18-56570, Gregory Frank Sperow appealed from the district court's dismissal of his motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). In his reply brief, however, he requested to withdraw the appeal. We treat this request as a motion for voluntary dismissal. So treated, the motion is granted and this appeal is dismissed. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b).

In Appeal No. 19-30035, Sperow challenges the district court's final order of forfeiture for the Mount Pleasant property. The government contends that this appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). The terms of the appeal waiver in Sperow's plea agreement unambiguously encompass the claims raised in this appeal. See id. The record belies Sperow's contentions that the district court modified the terms of his plea agreement to exclude the Mount Pleasant property from forfeiture and that the government breached the plea agreement. The record further belies Sperow's contention that he “provided complete and truthful cooperation” sufficient to trigger the government's obligation not to seek final forfeiture of the Mount Pleasant property to the extent it was obtained through legitimate means. Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of Sperow's challenge to the district court's final order of forfeiture, but instead dismiss pursuant to the valid waiver. See id. at 1207.

Appeal Nos. 18-56570 & 19-30055: DISMISSED.