United States of America v. Approximately $20,000.00 in U.S. Currency
Filing
8
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/5/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Donati, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:14-MC-00115-KJM-DAD
v.
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE
APPROXIMATELY $20,000 IN U.S.
CURRENCY,
Defendant.
16
17
18
Pursuant to the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, the Court finds:
19
1.
On March 14, 2014, the Nevada County Sheriff's Department seized
20
approximately $20,000.00 in U.S. Currency (the “defendant currency”) from Curtis Lee Hartz
21
(“Hartz”), during a parcel interdiction at the Federal Express (“Fed Ex”) shipping facility in Grass
22
Valley, California. The Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) adopted the defendant
23
currency for federal forfeiture on May 1, 2014.
2.
24
The DEA commenced administrative forfeiture proceedings, sending direct
25
written notice to all known potential claimants and publishing notice to all others. On or about
26
July 18, 2014, the DEA received a claim from Hartz asserting an ownership interest in the
27
defendant currency.
28
/////
1
1
3.
The United States represents that it could show at a forfeiture trial that on
2
March 14, 2014, Nevada County Sheriff's Department conducted a parcel interdiction at the
3
FedEx shipping facility located at 109 Spring Hill Drive in Grass Valley, California. During the
4
interdiction, law enforcement officials identified a parcel that bore markers consistent with
5
parcels used for shipping contraband. An investigation revealed that Hartz had mailed the FedEx
6
package to Grass Valley. Law enforcement agents contacted Hartz, who said the package
7
contained $20,000.00 in cash for a down payment on a parcel of land. Hartz granted law
8
enforcement agents permission to open the package.
9
4.
The United States represents that it could further show at a forfeiture trial
10
that before opening the package, law enforcement officials presented the package to a drug
11
detection dog, and the dog positively alerted to the presence of the odor of narcotics. The
12
package was opened, revealing a locked weapons case. When the case was opened, agents
13
located the defendant currency, bundled and double-wrapped in vacuum sealed bags.
14
15
5.
that Hartz’s criminal history includes a conviction for possession of a controlled substance.
16
17
The United States represents that it could further show at a forfeiture trial
6.
The United States could further show at a forfeiture trial that the defendant
currency is forfeitable to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
18
7.
Without admitting the truth of the factual assertions contained in this
19
stipulation, claimant specifically denying the same, and for the purpose of reaching an amicable
20
resolution and compromise of this matter, claimant agrees that an adequate factual basis exists to
21
support forfeiture of the defendant currency. Hartz hereby acknowledges that he is the sole
22
owner of the defendant currency, and that no other person or entity has any legitimate claim of
23
interest therein. Should any person or entity institute any kind of claim or action against the
24
government with regard to its forfeiture of the defendant currency, claimant shall hold harmless
25
and indemnify the United States, as set forth below.
26
8.
This court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and
27
1355, as this is the judicial district in which acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture
28
occurred.
2
1
2
9.
district in which the defendant currency was seized.
3
4
This court has venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1395, as this is the judicial
10.
The parties herein desire to settle this matter pursuant to the terms of a duly
executed Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture.
5
Based upon the above findings, and the files and records of the court, it is hereby
6
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
7
1.
8
The court adopts the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture
entered into by and between the parties.
9
2.
Upon entry of this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, $7,000.00 of the
10
Approximately $20,000.00 in U.S. Currency, together with any interest that may have accrued on
11
the total amount seized, shall be forfeited to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6),
12
to be disposed of according to law.
13
3.
Upon entry of this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, but no later than 60
14
days thereafter, $13,000.00 of the Approximately $20,000.00 in U.S. Currency shall be returned
15
to claimant Curtis Lee Hartz through his attorney Jennifer M. Granger.
16
4.
The United States of America and its servants, agents, and employees and
17
all other public entities, their servants, agents and employees, are released from any and all
18
liability arising out of or in any way connected with the seizure or forfeiture of the defendant
19
currency. This is a full and final release applying to all unknown and unanticipated injuries,
20
and/or damages arising out of said seizure or forfeiture, as well as to those now known or
21
disclosed. Claimants waive the provisions of California Civil Code § 1542.
22
5.
No portion of the stipulated settlement, including statements or admissions
23
made therein, shall be admissible in any criminal action pursuant to Rules 408 and 410(a)(4) of
24
the Federal Rules of Evidence.
25
6.
26
/////
27
/////
28
All parties will bear their own costs and attorney’s fees.
/////
3
1
7.
Pursuant to the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture filed herein,
2
the court enters a Certificate of Reasonable Cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465, that there was
3
reasonable cause for the seizure of the above-described defendant currency.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 5, 2015.
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?