ANDR§ BIROTTE JR., United States Attorney, ROBERT E. DUGDALE, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Criminal Division, STEVEN R. WELK (CBN 149883), Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section E-mail: Steven.Welk@usdoj.gov Federal Courthouse, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America.
KIMIKO JOHNS, Claimant.
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE
JESUS G. BERNAL, District Judge.
This action was filed on May 29, 2012. Notice was given and published in accordance with law. Kimiko Johns, relying upon a power of attorney obtained from Darius Sutton ("claimant") filed a verified statement identifying right or interest on June 29, 2012, and an answer on July 19, 2012. No other statements of interest or answers have been filed, and the time for filing statements and answers has expired. Plaintiff and claimant have reached an agreement that is dispositive of the action and have requested that the Court enter this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture. The Court, having been duly advised of and having considered the matter, and based upon the mutual consent of the parties hereto,
HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES THAT:
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action.
2. Notice of this action has been given in accordance with law. All potential claimants to the defendant other than claimant are deemed to have admitted the allegations of the Complaint. The allegations set out in the Complaint are sufficient to establish a basis for forfeiture.
3. The United States of America shall have judgment as to the defendant One 27-inch iMac Apple Computer, and no other person or entity shall have any right, title or interest therein. The United States Marshals Service is ordered to dispose of said asset in accordance with law.
4. Claimant has released the United States of America, its agencies, agents, and officers, including employees and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, from any and all claims, actions or liabilities arising out of or related to this action or the seizure of the defendant, including, without limitation, any claim for attorneys' fees, costs or interest which may be asserted on behalf of the claimant, whether pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465 or otherwise.
5. The Court finds that there was reasonable cause for the seizure of the defendant and institution of these proceedings. This judgment shall be construed as a certificate of ...