United States v. $11,500.00 in United States Currency

Civil forfeiture actions brought by the government require compliance with certain rules by both the government and by any claimant. In this case, the government and the only claimant each violated one of the rules. This appeal requires us to consider the appropriate consequences.

The government sought to forfeit two bundles of currency in the amounts of $11,500 and $2,971. Only one contrary claim was filed regarding both sets of currency. The district court concluded that the claimant failed to comply with Supplemental Admiralty and Maritime Claims Rule G(5)(a)(iii), which requires that “[a] claim filed by a person asserting an interest as a bailee must identify the bailor.” Supp. Rule G(5)(a)(iii). The claim form filed here asserted a different property interest, described by the claimant as “possessory,” and it did not identify a bail- or. The claimant’s alleged interest in the $11,500 later came to be identified as a bailee’s interest. Based on the failure to identify the bailor, the district court struck the claim to the $11,500. We agree with the district court that the requirement applied to the claimant, even though he initially asserted a different interest. We…

concurring in part, dissenting in part:

I agree that the government need not return seized funds for failure to give timely notice where it has already commenced a forfeiture proceeding. I also agree that Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(iii) required Guerrero to “identify the bailor,” because he asserted an interest as a bailee in the proceedings below. This is true even though he did not describe himself as a bailee on his initial claim form.

However, I write separately in dissent, because (1) I am not convinced that the district court abused its discretion in striking Guerrero’s claim for failure to comply with Supplemental Rule G(5); and (2) in any event, I would affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the government.

I. The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking Guerrero’s claim.

“Civil in rem forfeitures are governed by the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” United States v. $100,318.00 in U.S. Currency, *1017 354 F.3d 1110 , 1117 (9th Cir.2004). Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(iii) (the rule at issue here) provides: “A claim filed by a person asserting an interest as a bailee must…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , No. 11-35923 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 3:10-cv-00097- MO $11,500.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY , in rem; $2,971.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY , in rem, OPINION Defendants,

and

CHARLES GUERRERO ,

Claimant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 9, 2012* Portland, Oregon

Filed March 20, 2013

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). UNITED STATES V . $ 11,500.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY

Before: Barry G. Silverman, Richard R. Clifton, and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Clifton; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge N.R. Smith

SUMMARY**

Civil Forfeiture

The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s order in a civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. § 881.

The government sought to forfeit two bundles of currency in the amounts of…