United States v. Approximately $8

          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 ...