United States of America v. $ 192,300.00 in U.S. Currency

Filing 23

CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and the parties to this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture. The sum of $6,000. 00 only (without interest) shall be returned to Claimant. The remainder of the defendant currency (i.e., $186,300.00), plus the interest earned by the United States of America on the defendant currency shall be condemned and forfeited to the United States of America, which shall dispose of those funds in accordance with law. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 EILEEN M. DECKER United States Attorney LAWRENCE S. MIDDLETON Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division STEVEN R. WELK Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section VICTOR A. RODGERS California Bar No. 101281 Assistant United States Attorney Asset Forfeiture Section Federal Courthouse, 14th Floor 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-2569 Facsimile: (213) 894-7177 JS-6 E-mail: Victor.Rodgers@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 WESTERN DIVISION 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ) Case No. CV 15-04391-FMO(Ex) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE ) v. ) $192,300.00 IN U.S. ) CURRENCY, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) DARRYL LEVONNE MASON, ) ) Claimant. ) 24 25 26 On or about June 10, 2015, Plaintiff United States of 27 America (“the government,” “the United States of America” or 28 “plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for Forfeiture alleging that the 1 defendant $192,300.00 in U.S. Currency (the “defendant 2 currency”) is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3 § 981(a)(1)(C) and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). 4 Claimant Darryl Levonne Mason (“Claimant”) filed a claim to 5 the defendant currency on or about November 9, 2015 and an 6 answer to the Complaint for Forfeiture on or about January 28, 7 2016. 8 for filing claims and answers has expired. No other parties have appeared in this case and the time The government and Claimant have now agreed to settle this 9 10 action and to avoid further litigation by entering into this 11 Consent Judgment of Forfeiture. 12 The Court, having been duly advised of and having 13 considered the matter, and based upon the mutual consent of the 14 parties hereto, 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: 16 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of 17 this action and the parties to this Consent Judgment of 18 Forfeiture. 2. 19 20 The Complaint for Forfeiture states a claim for relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). 21 3. Notice of this action has been given as required by 22 law. 23 person other than Claimant. 24 potential claimants admit the allegations of the Complaint for 25 Forfeiture to be true. 26 No appearances have been made in the litigation by any 4. The Court deems that all other The sum of $6,000.00 only (without interest) shall be 27 returned to Claimant. The remainder of the defendant currency 28 (i.e., $186,300.00), plus the interest earned by the United 2 1 States of America on the defendant currency shall be condemned 2 and forfeited to the United States of America, which shall 3 dispose of those funds in accordance with law. 4 5. The funds to be returned to Claimant pursuant to 5 paragraph 4 above shall be paid to Claimant by electronic 6 transfer directly into the client trust account of Claimant’s 7 attorney of record in this case. 8 of record) shall provide to the United States of America the 9 information necessary for the United States of America to 10 11 Claimant (through his attorney complete the transfer. 6. Claimant hereby releases the United States of America, 12 its agencies, agents, officers, employees and representatives, 13 including, without limitation, all agents, officers, employees 14 and representatives of the Drug Enforcement Administration or 15 the Department of Justice and their respective agencies, as well 16 as all agents, officers, employees and representatives of any 17 state or local governmental or law enforcement agency involved 18 in the investigation or prosecution of this matter, from any and 19 all claims, actions or liabilities arising out of or related to 20 this action, including, without limitation, any claim for 21 attorney fees, costs and interest, which may be asserted by or 22 on behalf of Claimant, whether pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465 or 23 otherwise. 24 7. The Court finds that there was reasonable cause for 25 the seizure of the defendant currency and institution of these 26 proceedings. 27 of reasonable cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465. This judgment shall be construed as a certificate 28 3 1 8. The Court further finds that Claimant did not 2 substantially prevail in this action, and the parties hereto 3 shall bear their own attorney fees and costs. 4 5 6 7 Dated: February 17, 2016 /s/__________________ HONORABLE FERNANDO M. OLGUIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 1 CONSENT 2 The parties hereto consent to the above consent judgment of 3 forfeiture and waive any right of appeal. 4 5 Dated: February 16, 2016 6 7 8 EILEEN M. DECKER United States Attorney LAWRENCE S. MIDDLETON Assistant United states Attorney Chief, Criminal Division STEVEN R. WELK Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section 9 /s/ Victor A. Rodgers _ VICTOR A. RODGERS Assistant United States Attorney 10 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 12 13 14 DATED: February 10, 2016 /s/ Darryl Levonne Mason DARRYL LEVONNE MASON, Claimant _ DATED: February 16, 2016 /s/ Paul L. Gabbert PAUL L. GABBERT, ESQ. _ 15 16 17 18 Attorney for Claimant DARRYL LEVONNE MASON 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?