
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. A REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN LOS ANGELES, Defendant, Vyacheslav Astakhov, Appellant.
    No. 13-56800.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 10, 2015 .
    Filed Dec. 14, 2015.
    Monica E. Tait, Assistant U.S., Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Levi Reuben Uku, Esquire, Law Offices of Levi Reuben Uku, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant.
    Before: GOULD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vyacheslav Astakhov appeals the district court’s orders entering default and default judgment, forfeiting to the United States real estate that was the proceeds of bankruptcy fraud. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. The court properly granted the Government’s application for default before granting default judgment. In making each decision, the court considered Astakhov’s relevant briefs.

2. Because his Opening Brief effectively ignores the district court’s finding that Astakhov’s culpable conduct led to the default, Astakhov waived any challenge to the finding. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999). In any event, the culpable-conduct finding is not clearly erroneous. See Alan Neuman Prods., Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1391 (9th Cir.1988). The court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief from default or default judgment on that ground alone. See United States v. Signed Pers. Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir.2010).

3. The Request for Judicial Notice is denied as moot.

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