United States of America v. Stephen Young Kang

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN YOUNG KANG,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50161
D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00478-GW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 7, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,*** District
Judge.
Stephen Kang appeals the district court’s decision to seal a restitution order.
Because Kang signed a valid appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FILED
FEB 9 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
1. Kang’s plea agreement waived his right to appeal “the amount and terms
of any restitution order.” One of the restitution order’s terms provides for sealing.
We analyze plea agreements under contract law, United States v. De la Fuente, 8
F.3d 1333, 1337 (9th Cir. 1993), and a contract term providing for confidentiality is
generally enforceable, see Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Mower, 219 F.3d 1069, 1073–76
(9th Cir. 2000); see also Term, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining
terms as “[p]rovisions that define an agreement’s scope; conditions or stipulations”).
2. Kang argues that because the waiver is located in a section of the plea
agreement entitled “limited mutual waiver of appeal of sentence,” it applies only to
his sentence. That argument fails, as the waiver expressly covers the “terms of the
restitution order.”
APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --