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. Approximately $20

United States District Court, E.D. California

December 20, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
APPROXIMATELY $20, 000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, and APPROXIMATELY $20, 000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, Defendants.

          MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN Assistant U.S. Attorney, Attorneys for the United States.

          CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE

          Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge.

         Pursuant to the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, the Court finds:

         1. On or about February 19, 2019, agents with the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”) seized two parcels containing approximately $20, 000.00 in U.S. Currency (collectively, “the defendant currency”) 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 16, 2019, USPIS received a claim from Brandon Butorac (“Butorac”) asserting an ownership interest in the defendant currency.

         3. For the purposes of this settlement only, claimant does not contest the United States' representation that it could show at a forfeiture trial that on February 14, 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 two parcels that bore markers consistent with parcels used for shipping contraband. The packages was addressed to Branson Butorac, P.O. Box 64, Big Oak Flat, California, 95305, with the following return address: Brian Jackson, 8102 E. Jefferson Ave #B305, Detroit, Michigan, 48214.

         4. For the purposes of this settlement only, claimant does not contest the United States' representation that it could further show at a forfeiture trial that on February 19, 2019, law enforcement officials spoke to Butorac, who told them he was expecting the parcels and they should contain magazines and he provided consent to open the parcels. Law enforcement found the defendant currency inside vacuum-sealed magazines secreted inside the magazine pages. Butorac told law enforcement the money was for personal stuff and that Brian Jackson worked for him. Butorac would not provide any contact information for Brian Jackson and said he would be contacting an attorney.

         5. For the purposes of this settlement only, claimant does not contest the United States' representation 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. For the purposes of this settlement only, claimant does not contest the United States' representation that it 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).

         7. Without admitting the truth of the factual assertions contained in this stipulation, claimant Butorac 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. Brandon Butorac 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.

         8. 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.

         9. This Court has venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1395, as this is the judicial district in which the defendant currency was seized.

         10. 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 ...


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.