United States District Court, E.D. California
MCGREGOR W. SCOTT, United States Attorney, KEVIN C.
KHASIGIAN, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Attorneys for the United
States.
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE
WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pursuant
to the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, the
Court finds:
1. On
or about February 7, 2019, agents with the United States
Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”) seized
approximately $8, 000.00 in U.S. Currency (“defendant
currency”) from Chaz Butler (“Butler”) from
a parcel during a parcel interdiction at the Postal Facility
on Royal Oaks Drive in Sacramento, California.
2.
USPIS commenced administrative forfeiture proceedings,
sending direct written notice to all known potential
claimants and publishing notice to all others. On or about
April 7, 2019, USPIS received a claim from Butler asserting
an ownership interest in the defendant currency.
3. The
United States represents that it could show at a forfeiture
trial that on February 7, 2019, USPIS conducted a parcel
interdiction at the Postal Facility at 2000 Royal Oaks Drive
in Sacramento, California. During the interdiction, law
enforcement officials identified a parcel that bore markers
consistent with parcels used for shipping contraband. The
parcel was addressed to Yassen Rodriguez, 2504 J Street,
Sacramento, California, 95816, with the following return
address: Chaz Butler, 45 Beacon Street, Reading,
Massachusetts, 01867.
4. The
United States represents that it could further show at a
forfeiture trial that on February 7, 2019, law enforcement
officials spoke to Butler, who told them he had mailed a
parcel with $8, 000.00 in cash to his uncle, Yassen
Rodriguez. Butler stated he was loaning his uncle money and
that his uncle did not have a bank account so that is why he
mailed cash. Butler gave consent to open the parcel. Law
enforcement found $8, 000 in cash inside a bubble wrapped
wrapped small box and the box was inside a manila padded
envelope. The $8, 000 in cash consisted of 400 twenty dollar
bills, which is consistent with drug trafficking.5. The
United States represents that it could further show at a
forfeiture trial that the parcels were presented to a drug
detection dog, who positively alerted to the presence of the
odor of narcotics.
6. The
United States represents that it could further show at a
forfeiture trial that the parcel was presented to a drug
detection dog, who positively alerted to the presence of the
odor of narcotics.
7. The
United States could further show at a forfeiture trial that
the defendant currency is forfeitable to the United States
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
8.
Without admitting the truth of the factual assertions
contained in this stipulation, claimant Butler specifically
denies the same, and for the purpose of reaching an amicable
resolution and compromise of this matter, claimant agrees to
stipulate that an adequate factual basis exists to support
forfeiture of the defendant currency. Chaz Butler hereby
acknowledges that he is the sole owner of the defendant
currency, and that no other person or entity has any
legitimate claim of interest therein. Should any person or
entity institute any kind of claim or action against the
government with regard to its forfeiture of the defendant
currency, claimant shall hold harmless and indemnify the
United States, as set forth below.
9. This
Court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1345 and 1355, as this is the judicial district
in which acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture
occurred.
10.
This Court has venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1395, as
this is the judicial district in which the defendant currency
was seized.
11. The
parties herein desire to settle this matter pursuant to the
terms of a duly executed Stipulation for Consent Judgment of
Forfeiture.
Based
upon the above findings, and the files and records of the
Court, it ...