US v. Rasheed Martin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00343-JCC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998925087]. Mailed to: Rasheed Adewale Martins. [12-7037]

Appeal: 12-7037

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/27/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7037

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RASHEED ADEWALE MARTINS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00343-JCC-1)

Submitted:

August 22, 2012

Decided: August 27, 2012

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Rasheed Adewale Martins, Appellant Pro Se.
Patrick Joseph
Finnerty, Special Assistant United States Attorney, James
Patrick McDonald, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7037

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/27/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Rasheed Adewale Martins seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion for return of cash seized and
its order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 983(e) motion to set aside the
civil forfeiture.

We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a
party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty
days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or
order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court
extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or
reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
timely

filing

of

a

notice

jurisdictional requirement.”

of

appeal

in

a

civil

“[T]he

case

is

a

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,

214 (2007).
The

district

court’s

order

denying

the

motion

for

return of cash seized was entered on the docket on March 1,
2012.

The notice of appeal was filed on June 6, 2012. *

Because

Martins failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension

or

reopening

of

the

appeal

*

period,

we

dismiss

the

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).

2

Appeal: 12-7037

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/27/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

appeal of the order denying Martins’ motion for return of cash
seized.
Martins

also

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

denial of his motion to set aside the forfeiture.

court’s

Martins was

arrested on June 8, 2011, at Dulles International Airport by
United States Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”).

At the time of

his arrest, CBP seized $2800 in cash from him.

On June 21,

2011, CBP sent Martins a letter serving as official notification
that the $2800 was subject to forfeiture pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
§ 1595a(a) (2006).

Martins responded to this letter on June 28,

2011 contesting the forfeiture of the cash and requesting that
CBP consider his petition administratively.

On September 15,

2011, CBP denied Martins’ petition and notified Martins that he
had sixty days in which to submit a supplemental petition.

If

Martins did not submit a supplemental petition, the property
would

be

forfeited.

Martins

did

not

file

a

supplemental

petition.
On March 19, 2011, Martins filed a motion to set aside
the forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e).

Section 983(e) permits

a plaintiff to challenge a civil forfeiture if he “did not know
or have reason to know of the seizure within sufficient time to
file

a

timely

sufficient

claim.”

notice

of

Martins
the

acknowledges

administrative

that

forfeiture

he

had

action.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying the
3

Appeal: 12-7037

motion

Doc: 8

to

set

Filed: 08/27/2012

aside

the

Pg: 4 of 4

forfeiture.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

4