REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:

This appeal follows a criminal investigation which resulted in the United States Government seizing a 2005 Pilatus Aircraft, Bearing Tail No. N679PE, and instituting a civil forfeiture proceeding against the plane. Subsequently, Pablo Zarate Juarez ("Zarate"), a Mexican citizen, claimed an interest in the aircraft, individually and on behalf of Viza Construction, L.L.C. and Premier International Holdings, Limited, (collectively "Claimants")1. Zarate, while in Mexico, was indicted on money laundering conspiracy and bank fraud charges related to the civil forfeiture of the aircraft. The Government moved, against Claimants' opposition, to dismiss the claims to the aircraft under the Fugitive Disentitlement statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2466, which prevents a claimant who is a fugitive from justice from contesting the civil forfeiture. The district court dismissed the claims under § 2466 and denied Claimants' motion to stay the civil proceedings. We affirm.

I.

The "fugitive disentitlement doctrine," dating back to the late 19th century, authorized "an appellate court to dismiss an appeal or writ in a criminal matter when the party seeking relief becomes a fugitive." Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 823, 116 S.Ct. 1777, 1780, 135 L.Ed.2d 102 (1996) (Citing Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 239, 113 S.Ct. 1199, 1203, 122 L.Ed.2d 581, (1993); and Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97, 24, 4 Otto 97, 24 L.Ed. 32 (1876)). An issue existed as to whether this disentitlement applied to civil forfeiture cases until Congress resolved the issue by enacting 28 U.S.C. § 2466, which provides that:

28 U.S.C. § 2466. Our issue is whether the Government proved that Zarate declined to enter/reenter the United States to submit to its jurisdiction, or otherwise evaded the criminal court's jurisdiction.

II.

Claimants argue on appeal that: (1) the Government did not prove Zarate remained outside the United States to intentionally avoid criminal prosecution; (2) Zarate's due process rights were violated; and (3) the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the claims instead of granting a stay.

A. Zarate remained outside United States to deliberately escape prosecution

The Government demonstrates the court's findings in United States v. $671,160.00 in U.S. Currency, 730 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2013) to be consistent with the instant case in finding that a totality of the circumstances showed that Zarate deliberately remained away from the United States to avoid criminal prosecution. We agree.2 Zarate had previously visited the United States approximately 100 times in less than three years prior to the seizure of the aircraft. The record also established that Zarate has family residing in this country, as well as significant business interests here. Yet, he chose not to return to the United States after the seizure of the plane in June 2012.

B. Application of fugitive disentitlement does not violate Claimants' due process rights

Claimants next contend that Zarate's choice of whether or not to enter the United States to fight the civil forfeiture of the plane or to face criminal prosecution was a violation of his due process rights, specifically his rights under the Mexico-United States extradition treaty. For support, Claimants cite the Supreme Court's decision in Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968), wherein the Court found it "intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another" when a criminal defendant was faced with giving up his Fourth Amendment rights or Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Zarate has no rights to claim because of that treaty. The United States does not seek to extradite, and a right to be heard is waived by not seeking it. See U.S. v. Batato, No. 15-1360, 833 F.3d 413, 2016 WL 4254916 (4th Cir. Aug. 12, 2016).

C. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying stay

Finally, Claimants argue that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing their claims instead of granting a stay of the civil forfeiture proceeding.3 We disagree. The district court denied the requested stay first because Zarate is a fugitive from justice. The district court also noted Claimants' inconsistent positions regarding the stay in the matter. The record reveals that Claimants repeatedly opposed the Government's motions/extensions for stay, did not oppose when the Government moved to lift the stay, but then filed for a stay on their own behalf. Moreover, the district court explained that Zarate failed to personally appear in any proceedings related to the forfeiture action — only appearing telephonically in one hearing — and has not answered discovery or provided otherwise meaningful participation in the forfeiture action.

III.

Since the record supports a finding that Zarate remained outside the United States to intentionally avoid criminal prosecution, the elements of § 2466 are met and the claims in opposition lack merit, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.