US v. Barton Adam

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Denying motions to appoint/assign counsel [999814050-2] denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999758421-2] in 16-6190, 16-6202, 16-6203, 16-6205, Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00077-JPB-RWT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999942707]. Mailed to: Josephine Artillaga Adams. [16-6190, 16-6199, 16-6202, 16-6203, 16-6205]

Appeal: 16-6190

Doc: 26

Filed: 10/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 13

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6190

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-6199

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPHINE ARTILLAGA ADAMS, For herself and for minor B.A.,
Claimant - Appellant,
and
BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS,
Defendant.

Appeal: 16-6190

Doc: 26

Filed: 10/06/2016

Pg: 2 of 13

No. 16-6202

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS, For minor B.A.,
Defendant - Appellant,
B.A.,
Claimant - Appellant.

No. 16-6203

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS, for himself and minor B.A.,
Defendant - Appellant,
JOSEPHINE ARTILLAGA ADAMS, for herself and minor B.A.,
Claimant - Appellant.

No. 16-6205

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

2

Appeal: 16-6190

Doc: 26

Filed: 10/06/2016

Pg: 3 of 13

v.
BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS, For himself and for minor B.A.,
Defendant - Appellant,
JOSEPHINE ARTILLAGA ADAMS, For herself and for minor B.A.,
Claimant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00077-JPB-RWT-1)

Submitted:

September 30, 2016

Decided:

October 6, 2016

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Barton Joseph Adams, Josephine Artillaga Adams, Appellants Pro
Se.
Michael D. Stein, Assistant United States Attorney,
Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

Appeal: 16-6190

Doc: 26

Filed: 10/06/2016

Pg: 4 of 13

PER CURIAM:
In

these

consolidated

appeals,

Barton

Joseph

Adams,

Josephine Artillaga Adams, and B.A. (Appellants) seek to appeal
and appeal from a host of district court judgments and orders.
We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
I.
Appellants

seek

to

appeal

the

March

5,

2013,

criminal

judgment, the July 15, 2013, amended criminal judgment, and the
April

23,

2014,

amended

criminal

judgment

entered

in

the

criminal case against Barton Adams.
A.
In

criminal

cases,

a

defendant

must

file

his

appeal within 14 days after the entry of judgment.
P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i).

notice

of

Fed. R. App.

With or without a motion, upon a showing of

excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an
extension of up to 30 days to file a notice of appeal.
App.

P.

4(b)(4);

United

States

v.

Reyes,

759

F.2d

Fed. R.
351,

353

(4th Cir. 1985).
The

district

court

entered

the

criminal

March 5, 2013, July 15, 2013, and April 23, 2014.

judgments

on

Appellants’

notice of appeal with respect to these judgments was filed on
February 11, 2016.

Because Barton Adams did not file a timely

4

Appeal: 16-6190

Doc: 26

Filed: 10/06/2016

Pg: 5 of 13

appeal and did not obtain an extension of the appeal period, we
dismiss his appeal of these judgments. *
B.
With respect to Josephine Adams and B.A., to have standing
to

appeal

these

judgments,

they

must

show

that

they

have

“suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly
traceable

to

the

challenged

[judgment],

and

redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”
Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013).

is

likely

to

be

Hollingsworth v.

Josephine Adams and B.A.

are not bound by the March 5 judgment and the July 15 and April
23 amended judgments and thus are not “sufficiently aggrieved”
by them to possess standing to seek appellate review.
Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 257 (4th Cir. 2014).

Doe v.
Because

Josephine Adams and B.A. cannot show any injury traceable to the
March 5 judgment and the July 15 and April 23 amended judgments,
we

dismiss

their

appeals

as

to

these

judgments

for

lack

of

standing.

*

We note that the appeal period in a criminal case is not a
jurisdictional provision, but, rather, a claim-processing rule.
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209-14 (2007); United States v.
Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009).
Because Barton
Adams’ appeal is inordinately late, and its consideration is not
in the best interest of judicial economy, we exercise our
inherent power to dismiss it.
United States v. Mitchell,
518 F.3d 740, 744, 750 (10th Cir. 2008).

5

Appeal: 16-6190

Doc: 26

Filed: 10/06/2016

Pg: 6 of 13

II.
Appellants

also

seek

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

January 14, 2013, preliminary order of forfeiture, February 14,
2013,

amended

preliminary

order

of

forfeiture,

and

July

11,

2013, second amended preliminary order of forfeiture.
A.
The

January

14

and

February

14

orders

were

entered

in

advance of Barton Adams’ March 1, 2013, sentencing hearing and
became

final

as

32.2(b)(4)(A).

to

him

at

that

hearing.

Fed.

R.

Crim.

P.

The time for Barton Adams to appeal those orders

began to run when the March 5 criminal judgment was entered.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(C).

As noted, Barton Adams noted

his appeal of the March 5 criminal judgment on February 11,
2016,

and

did

not

obtain

an

extension

of

time

to

appeal.

Because Barton Adams’ appeal is inordinately late, we exercise
our inherent power and dismiss his appeal as to the January 14
and February 14 orders.
With

respect

to

the

July

11,

2013,

second

amended

preliminary order of forfeiture, Barton Adams could appeal that
order within 14 days of its entry on July 11, 2013.
Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(C); Fed. R. App. P. 4(b).
however, did not do so.

Fed. R.

Barton Adams,

His February 11, 2016, notice of appeal

is untimely, and he did not obtain an extension of time to

6

Appeal: 16-6190

Doc: 26

appeal.

Filed: 10/06/2016

Pg: 7 of 13

We therefore exercise our inherent power and dismiss

Barton Adams’ appeal as to the July 11 order as well.
B.
Turning
appeal,

to

they

determinations
orders.

Josephine
challenge
in

the

the

and

B.A.,

validity

January 14,

we

of

note

that,

the

February

14,

on

forfeiture

and

July

11

We conclude Josephine Adams and B.A. lack standing to

bring those challenges.
&

Adams

Advisory

Committee

United

States v.

2012);

United

(8th Cir.
1236-37
496 F.3d

Notes,

Davenport,

States v.

2008);

United

(10th Cir.
175,

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(A), (c)

668

F.3d

Porchay,
States

2008);

184-85

Subdivision

(2d

v.

533

(b)

(2000

1316,

1320

F.3d

Assocs.

Cir.

2007).

LLC
We

(11th

704,

Andrews,

DSI

Adoption);

530

v.

Cir.

707,
F.3d

710
1232,

United

States,

therefore

dismiss

Josephine Adams’ and B.A.’s appeals as to these orders.
III.
Appellants

also

seek

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

June 25, 2014, and July 15, 2014, orders of forfeiture.
A.
The June 25 and July 15 orders granted the Government’s
motions

filed

forfeiture.

under

Rule

32.2(c)(2)

for

final

orders

of

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 32.2 explain,

however, that a final order of forfeiture has no bearing on the
defendant’s

rights.

See

Fed.
7

R.

Crim.

P.

32.2,

Advisory

Appeal: 16-6190

Doc: 26

Committee

Filed: 10/06/2016

States v.

Notes,

Pg: 8 of 13

Subdivision

Flanders,

752

F.3d

(b)

(2000

1317,

Adoption);

1343

(11th

United

Cir.

2014).

Because a Rule 32(c)(2) final order of forfeiture has no bearing
on a defendant’s rights, the defendant has no right to appeal
that order.

Flanders, 752 F.3d at 1343.

The June 25 and July

15 orders have no bearing on Barton Adams’ rights.

He therefore

has no right to appeal them, and we dismiss his efforts to do
so.

See id. at 1344.
B.
With respect to Josephine Adams and B.A., we conclude, for

the reasons noted in section II(B), that they lack standing to
appeal

from

the

June

25

and

July

15

orders.

We

therefore

dismiss their efforts to appeal those orders on this basis.
IV.
Appellants
court’s

also

October

26,

have
2015,

noted

an

order

appeal

denying

from

the

B.A.’s

district

motion

for

appointment of counsel and denying Barton Adams appointment of
counsel.
A.
Josephine Adams cannot show any injury to herself that is
traceable

to

the

district

court’s

rulings

in

the

October

26

order denying appointment of counsel for Barton Adams and B.A.
We therefore dismiss her effort to appeal the October 26 order
for lack of standing.
8

Appeal: 16-6190

Doc: 26

Filed: 10/06/2016

Pg: 9 of 13

B.
With

respect

to

Barton

Adams’

and

B.A.’s

appeal

of

the

October 26 order, we observe that Appellants’ informal brief
does not present argument explaining how or why the district
court

erred

in

denying

them

appointment

of

counsel.

Barton

Adams and B.A. thus have waived review of the October 26 order.
See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc.,
562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009); Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,
370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004).

We therefore affirm the

order.

3:08-cr-00077-JPB-RWT-1

United

States

v.

Adams,

No.

(N.D.W. Va. Oct. 26, 2015).
V.
Finally, Appellants have noted an appeal from the district
court’s

February

5,

2016

order.

The

February

5

order:

dismissed an August 21, 2013, claim pleading, and August 22,
August

26,

September

26,

and

October

4,

2013,

petitions

asserting Barton Adams’ and B.A.’s interests in the property
ordered forfeited and at issue in the July 11, 2013, second
amended preliminary order of forfeiture; denied Barton Adams’
motion

to

set

aside

the

June

25

and

July

15

orders

of

forfeiture; denied Barton Adams’ motion for a decision on the
motion

to

set

aside;

Adjudicate

the

Validity

Preliminarily

Ordered

denied

the

of

[Their]

Forfeited”
9

self-styled
Interest

filed

by

“Hearing
in

Barton

to

Property
Adams,

Appeal: 16-6190

Doc: 26

Filed: 10/06/2016

Pg: 10 of 13

Josephine Adams, and B.A.; denied the self-styled “Motion to
Intervene

Regarding

the

Government’s

violation

of

Notice

Requirement of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a)”
filed by Barton Adams, Josephine Adams, and B.A.; and denied as
moot the self-styled “Motion to Reconsider Motion [D.E. 1475] to
Hold Hearings at the Martinsburg Vicinage Until the Venue Issue
is Decided” filed by Barton Adams.
A.
We conclude that Barton Adams lacks standing to appeal the
portion of the February 5 order dismissing the August 21 claim
pleading and the August 22, August 26, September 26, and October
4

petitions

insofar

as

they

asserted

B.A.’s

interest

in

the

property ordered forfeited, and the denial of the hearing to
adjudicate pleading and the motion to intervene, insofar as they
asserted arguments on behalf of Josephine Adams and B.A.

Barton

Adams can assert no injuries traceable to those rulings, and we
therefore

dismiss

his

efforts

Additionally,

on

appeal,

to

appeal

them

for

do

not

lack

of

standing.
Appellants

present

arguments explaining how the district court erred in its rulings
as to the motion for decision and the motion to reconsider.

By

failing to brief these matters, Barton Adams has waived review
of them.

See 4th Cir. 34(b); Wahi, 562 F.3d at 607; Williams,

370 F.3d at 430 n.4.

We therefore affirm as to Barton Adams’
10

Appeal: 16-6190

Doc: 26

appeal

of

Filed: 10/06/2016

these

rulings.

Pg: 11 of 13

United

States

v.

Adams,

No.

3:08-cr-00077-JPB-RWT-1 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 5, 2016).
With respect to the district court’s denial of the motion
to set aside, the hearing to adjudicate pleading-insofar as it
challenged
behalf-the

the

validity

motion

to

of

forfeiture

intervene—insofar

on

Barton

it

challenged

as

Adams’
the

validity of forfeiture on Barton Adams’ behalf—and dismissal of
the

August

21

claim

pleading

and

the

August

22,

August

26,

September 26, and October 4 petitions—insofar as they asserted
Barton

Adams’

reversible

interest

error.

§ 853(n)(2)

See

(2012).

dismissal rulings.

in

the

Fed.

We

forfeited

R.

Crim.

therefore

property—we

P.

32.2(c);

affirm

find

these

21

no

U.S.C.

denial

and

United States v. Adams, No. 3:08-cr-00077-

JPB-RWT-1 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 5, 2016).
B.
With respect to Josephine Adams, we conclude that she lacks
standing to appeal the district court’s dismissal of the August
21 claim pleading and the August 22, August 26, September 26,
and October 4 petitions asserting interests by Barton Adams and
B.A.

in

the

forfeited

property,

its

denial

of

Barton

Adams’

motions to set aside, for decision, and to reconsider, and its
denial of the hearing to adjudicate pleading and the motion to
intervene,

insofar

as

these

latter

two

pleadings

arguments on behalf of Barton Adams and B.A.
11

presented

Josephine Adams

Appeal: 16-6190

Doc: 26

Filed: 10/06/2016

Pg: 12 of 13

has no injury traceable to these rulings.

We therefore dismiss

her effort to appeal them for lack of standing.
With respect to the portions of the hearing to adjudicate
pleading

and

the

motion

to

intervene

asserting

arguments

on

behalf of Josephine Adams, we find no reversible error in the
district court’s denial rulings because Josephine Adams did not
timely

file

petitions

in

the

district

court

asserting

her

interest in the forfeited property and because the hearing to
adjudicate
otherwise
affirm

pleading
comport

as

to

and

with

these

the

21

motion

U.S.C.

rulings.

to

intervene

§ 853(n)(2).

United

States

We
v.

did

not

therefore

Adams,

No.

3:08-cr-00077-JPB-RWT-1 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 5, 2016).
C.
We

conclude

that

B.A.

lacks

standing

to

appeal:

the

district court’s rulings relative to Barton Adams’ motions to
set aside, for decision, and to reconsider; the district court’s
dismissal of the August 21 claim pleading and the August 22,
August

26,

September

26,

and

October

4

petitions

asserting

interests of Barton Adams; and the district court’s denial of
the hearing to adjudicate pleading and the motion to intervene,
insofar as these pleadings asserted interests of Barton Adams
and Josephine Adams.
rulings.

We

therefore

B.A. has no injury traceable to these
dismiss

rulings.
12

his

efforts

to

appeal

those

Appeal: 16-6190

Doc: 26

Filed: 10/06/2016

Pg: 13 of 13

With respect to the August 21 claim pleading, it does not
comply with the requirement in 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(3) that it be
signed by the petitioner under penalty of perjury.
remaining

petitions

do

not

comport

with

Further, the
§ 853(n)(3)’s

requirement that they set forth the nature and extent of the
petitioner’s right, title, or interest in the property, and the
time and circumstances of the petitioner’s acquisition of these
matters.

Accordingly, the dismissal of the claim pleadings and

petitions—insofar
property

ordered

as

they

asserted

forfeited—and

the

B.A.’s
denial

interest
of

the

in

the

hearing

to

adjudicate pleading and the motion to intervene—insofar as these
pleadings supported B.A.’s efforts to assert his interest in the
property—were not reversible error.
these rulings.

We therefore affirm as to

United States v. Adams, No. 3:08-cr-00077-JPB-

RWT-1 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 5, 2016).
VI.
Accordingly,

we

dismiss

in

part

and

affirm

We deny Appellants’ motions to appoint counsel.

in

part.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

13