UNITED STATES v. CAMACHO MEDINA (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Erik Isaac Camacho-Medina appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the order of forfeiture imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for making false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Camacho-Medina contends that the district court lacked sufficient evidence to impose the $10,307.20 money judgment contained in the order of forfeiture. However, the record reflects that Camacho-Medina stipulated to forfeiture of the challenged sum as part of his guilty plea. Accordingly, the district court did not err by not requiring the government to present additional evidence in support of the sum. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B); United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235, 1244 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In most cases, an admission by the defendant suffices to prove the factual basis for criminal forfeiture.”), abrogated on other grounds by Honeycutt v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1626, 198 L.Ed.2d 73 (2017).

AFFIRMED.