Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. $275

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 17, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
$275, 010.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, Defendant.

ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR., United States Attorney, ROBERT E. DUGDALE, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Criminal Division, STEVEN R. WELK, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section, California Bar No. 149883, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America.

DONALD B. MARKS, MARKS & BROOKLIER, Attorney for Claimant Keliv Lamonte Watson.

[PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE

AUDREY B. COLLINS, District Judge.

On or about August 27, 2013, Plaintiff United States of America ("the government, " "the United States of America" or "plaintiff") filed a Complaint for Forfeiture alleging that the defendant $275, 010.00 in U.S. Currency (the "defendant") was subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).

The defendant was seized from Kevin Lamonte Watson ("Watson") on December 19, 2012. Following the seizure, the Federal Bureau of Investigation initiated administrative forfeiture proceedings against the defendant, and Watson submitted a claim in those proceedings, causing the matter to be referred to the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California for consideration of judicial forfeiture proceedings.

Following the filing of the complaint, the government published notice of the action on a government website in accordance with Rule G(4)(a) of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. The notice was published on www.forfeiture.gov between September 9, 2013 and October 8, 2013, and included instructions on how to contest the forfeiture, including the deadlines for the filing of claims and answers. In addition, the government sent direct notice of the action to Watson in care of his attorney. The deadline for filing claims pursuant to the published notice was November 8, 2013. No claims have been filed.

The parties have reached an agreement and wish to avoid further litigation by entering into this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture. The government and Watson stipulate and agree that neither is aware of any potential claimants to the defendant other than Watson. The parties stipulate and request that Watson be relieved from filing a separate claim or answer, and that this proposed consent judgment be deemed to satisfy the claim requirement.

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:

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and the parties to this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture.

2. The Complaint for Forfeiture states a claim for relief pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).

3. Notice of this action has been given as required by law. No appearances have been made in the litigation by any potential claimant. Watson's agreement to this proposed consent judgment satisfies the claim requirement. The Court deems that all other potential claimants admit the allegations of the Complaint for Forfeiture to be true.

4. $212, 510.00 of the defendant, plus the interest earned by the United States of America on the entirety of the defendant, shall be and hereby is condemned and forfeited to the United States of America, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.