USA v. 2010 Ford Fusion SE Hybrid

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-50772 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: EBC , Judge: GJC Mandate pull date is 03/30/2015 [14-50772]

Case: 14-50772

Document: 00512926902

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/04/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-50772
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
February 4, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
2010 FORD FUSION SE HYBRID VIN: 3FADP0L30AR428645,
Defendant
v.
JESSE LEE OLIVIERI,
Claimant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC 1:13-CV-48
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 14-50772

Document: 00512926902

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/04/2015

No. 14-50772
Claimant-Appellant Jesse Olivieri appeals from a final judgment of civil
forfeiture of his 2010 Ford Fusion SE Hybrid, Vehicle Identification Number
3FADP0L30AR428645, following trial by consent before the magistrate judge.
Supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law, the judgment determined
that “the Government had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
there was a substantial connection between the Ford Fusion and Claimant
Jessie L. Olivieri’s use and intent to use the Ford Fusion to transport, facilitate
the transportation of, sell, possess, and conceal methylone.”
On appeal, Mr. Olivieri argues the evidence was insufficient to show a
substantial connection between the Ford Fusion and the drug activity. We
must disagree. In addition to law enforcement testimony, two of Mr. Olivieri’s
acquaintances, Joshua Enck and K-Cey Faglie, testified that, although they
could not remember exact dates, they certainly remembered sometimes
traveling in the Ford Fusion to a club to sell drugs. Thus, the evidence is
sufficient to support the magistrate judge’s finding of a substantial connection.
Mr. Olivieri also alleges the magistrate judge committed plain error in
making certain statements regarding Mr. Olivieri. To prevail on a plain error
argument, an appellant must prove, among other things, that the error
“’affected the appellant’s substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means’
it ‘affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.’” 1 Because the
testimony of the other witnesses is sufficient to support the judgment of civil
forfeiture, Mr. Olivieri has failed to show that the magistrate judge’s
statements concerning him could have affected the outcome, even if they were
erroneous. Accordingly, he is not entitled to reversal for plain error.
For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM.

United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010) (quoting Puckett v. United States,
556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)).
1

2