FINAL ORDER of Forfeiture granting in part and denying in part Motion for Return of Property 1 . (see also 17-cr-20268) Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 17-cv-51083
Honorable George Caram Steeh
Related to Case No. 17-cr-20268
Ahmad Makki, Third Party Petitioner.
FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE
An Information was filed on or around April 24, 2017, which charged
Defendant Atef Moukalled with one count of Making a Firearm in Violation of the
NFA, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(f). United States v. Atef Moukalled, Case No.
17-20268, Docket #1 (Criminal Case).
The Information sought criminal forfeiture of all property that was involved
and/or used in the offense as well as proceeds of the offense pursuant to Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 32.2. (Criminal Case, Docket #1). On May 4, 2017,
Defendant pleaded guilty to Count One of the Information and agreed to forfeiture of
the Subject Property, which included One (1) Anderson Firearms receiver, Model
AM-15, multi-caliber, Serial number 16127777 (Receiver); and Ammunition as
listed in ATF Items: 29, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 58, 61, 63, 69, 74 (Ammunition).
(Criminal Case, Docket #8). The Court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture
(POF) which forfeited Defendant’s interest in the Subject Property. (Criminal Case,
According to the terms of the POF, the government served all potential third
party claimants with notice of the government’s intention to forfeit the Subject
Property based on its involvement in the offense of conviction, which included
Ammunition and the Receiver.
On or about August 4, 2017, Ahmad Makki mailed to the government a letter
claiming an ownership interest in the Receiver and “all ammunition rounds (.223,
9mm, .450, .223, .68).” Defendant also filed a motion for return of property with the
Court, which was assigned a miscellaneous case number associated with the criminal
case. In re Ahmad Makki, Motion for Return of Property, docket #1, Case No. 17mc-51083.
Publication is complete, and no other party has filed a claim or petition; thus,
forfeiture is final as to Defendant and all other potential parties.
The government filed a motion for entry of a final order of forfeiture pursuant
to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c)(2) based on Ahmad Makki’s motion
for return of property. (Criminal Case, Docket # 15).
The government conducted an investigation into Ahmad Makki’s claim and
verified that he is the purchaser of the Receiver, is not a “prohibited person” from
owning or possessing a firearm and is not otherwise precluded from owning or
possessing the Receiver but recommended that Ahmad Makki’s motion as to the
Ammunition should be denied because he did not show any proof of purchase or
ownership of the Ammunition. (Criminal Case, Docket # 15).
Based on the petition filed by Ahmad Makki, the investigation conducted by
ATF, the government’s motion, and being otherwise fully informed, this Court
ORDERS, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c)(2):
That a final order of forfeiture as to the Receiver is hereby entered in favor of
Petitioner Ahmad Makki;
That ATF shall return the Receiver to Petitioner Ahmad Makki as soon as
practicable, after any appeal or habeas proceeding in which it is needed to be
retained as evidence;
That the Receiver is hereby forfeited as to any and all other parties;
That Petitioner Ahmad Makki’s claim to the Ammunition is denied, and the
Ammunition is forfeited as to any and all other parties.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce
this Order and to amend it as necessary pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/George Caram Steeh
HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH
United States District Judge
Dated: October 11, 2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order have been served upon parties
Of record and on Ahmad Makki,
6125 Highview, Dearborn Heights, MI 48127
on today’s date.
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?