USA v. 2010 Ford Fusion SE Hybrid
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-50772 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: EBC , Judge: GJC Mandate pull date is 03/30/2015 [14-50772]
Date Filed: 02/04/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
February 4, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
Lyle W. Cayce
2010 FORD FUSION SE HYBRID VIN: 3FADP0L30AR428645,
JESSE LEE OLIVIERI,
Claimant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 02/04/2015
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)).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?