United States of America v. $6,357.00 in United States Currency

Filing 11

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 6/21/2011. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:11cv29
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiffs,
v.
$6,357.00 in United States Currency,
Defendant.
___________________________________ )

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Claimant Robert A. Sellarole’s Motion to
Reconsider [# 10]. Claimant moves the Court to reconsider its prior Order denying
without prejudice his Motion to Appoint Counsel. This is a civil forfeiture action
brought by the United States of America. The Government seeks the forfeiture of
$6,357.00 in United States Currency. After the Court denied Claimant Sellarole’s
prior motion, he sent another letter to the Clerk of Court requesting the
reconsideration of the Court’s Order. In support of his motion he attached his tax
return, bank statements, and several other documents.
The appointment of counsel for indigent claimants in civil forfeiture
proceedings is government by 18 U.S.C. § 983(b). The relevant provision of this
statute provides that:
If a person with standing to contest the forfeiture of property in a judicial
civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute is financially

unable to obtain representation by counsel, and the person is represented
by counsel appointed under section 3006A of this title in connection with
a related criminal case, the court may authorize counsel to represent that
person with respect to the claim.

18 U.S.C. § 983(b)(1)(A). Claimant has still not provided the Court with sufficient
information for the Court to determine whether the appointment of counsel pursuant
to Section 983(b) is appropriate in this case. Claimant has not indicated whether he
is currently represented by counsel appointed under Section 3006A in a related
criminal case, or even whether a related criminal case is pending. Accordingly, the
Court DENIES Claimant’s Motion for Reconsideration [# 10]. The Court DIRECTS
the Clerk to place under SEAL the Motion to Reconsideration [# 10] because the
document contains the confidential information of Claimant, including his social
security number, bank account number, and other information.

Signed: June 21, 2011