United States of America v. $3,079.00, more or less, in U.S. Currency
ORDER granting 19 Motion for Final Order of Forfeiture as set out.. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 7/21/2011. (copy to USM) (cmj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
$3,079.00, more or less,
in U.S. CURRENCY,
CIVIL ACTION NO 09-0658-KD-C
ORDER OF FORFEITURE
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Order of Forfeiture
(Doc.19). For cause shown, the Motion is granted.
On October 7, 2009, a complaint for forfeiture in rem was filed on behalf of the United
States against the defendant, $3,079.00, more or less, in U.S. Currency, to enforce Title 21,
United States Code, Section 881(a)(6), which subjects to civil forfeiture all money or other
things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled
substance in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, all proceeds traceable to such an
exchange, and all money used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of the Controlled
Substances Act. Process was fully issued in this action for the forfeiture of the defendant
property under the complaint.
On September 20, 2010, Donald Ray, pro se, filed a response to the complaint. Pursuant
to the Warrant For Arrest in rem, the defendant, $3,079.00, more or less, in U.S. Currency, was
seized and arrested on October 14, 2009.
On July 12, 2011, the parties filed a Release and Settlement of All Claims and Stipulation
and Consent to Entry of Order of Forfeiture. (Doc. 18). Pursuant to the terms of said settlement
agreement, the parties agreed that $2,579.00 of the defendant $3,079.00 is to be forfeited to the
United States of America for disposition in accordance with the law, pursuant to Title 21, United
States Code, Sections 881(a)(6). The parties further agreed that $500.00 of the defendant
$3,079.00 be returned to claimant, Donald Wayne Ray, in accordance with the terms of the
Stipulation and Consent to Entry of Order of Forfeiture.
The plaintiff published notice of this action on an official government forfeiture internet
site as authorized by Supplemental Rule G(4)(iv)(C) for 30 consecutive days beginning on
October 10, 2009 (Doc. 3). Said published notice notified any unknown potential claimants that
any claim to said currency had to be filed within 60 days of the first date of publication (October
10, 2009) and any motion under Rule 12 or answer within 20 days of filing the claim. (Doc. 6).
Supplemental Rule G(5)(ii)(B). As a result, any claim by such unknown potential claimants was
due by December 9, 2009, and any Rule 12 motion or answer within 20 days thereafter, by
December 29, 2009. No claims, motions or answers by unknown potential claimants were filed
and the time for filing same has long since expired.
The plaintiff sent notice and a copy of the complaint to potential claimant Deborah
Calderon at her place of incarceration in accordance with Supplemental Rule G(4)(b)(iii)(C) and
due process. Calderon has filed no responsive pleadings and her time to do so has long since
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court having considered the matter and having been fully
advised in the premises, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the amended complaint states a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. The sum of $2,579.00 of the defendant $3,079.00 is forfeited to the United States of
America for disposition according to law, and the remaining $500.00 is to be returned to
claimant, Donald Wayne Ray, by the United States Marshals Service.
3. Each party is to bear its own costs.
4. This Order resolving all matters and issues joined in this action, the Clerk of Court is
direct to close this file for administrative and statistical purposes.
DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of July, 2011.
s / Kristi K DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?