Opinion
Nos. 09-55735, 09-55748.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
June 9, 2011.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding D.C. Nos. 2:00-cv-10590-SVW-SGL 2:00-cv-10591-SVW-SGL.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
In these consolidated cases, Andrew Hantzis, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgments in the government's civil forfeiture actions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court's finding that a party consented to a settlement agreement, Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight Lines, 846 F.2d 47, 48 (9th Cir. 1988), and for an abuse of discretion the district court's decision to enforce a settlement agreement, Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court found that Hantzis's former counsel had his authorization to enter into an agreement with the government stipulating that the defendant properties were subject to forfeiture. Considering the record as a whole, the district court's finding is not clearly erroneous. See Ahern, 846 F.2d at 49; see also Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985) ("Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous."). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the stipulation and entering judgment for the government. See Doi, 276 F.3d at 1140.
Hantzis's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.