In Re: Seizure of One 2001 36' Contender Vessel, Seized on June 6, 2014

Filing 7

ORDER denying 1 Claim filed by Guillermo J. Navarro-Torres. This case is hereby closed for all statistical purposes. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Silvia Carreno-Coll on 3/24/2015.(NBB)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

IN RE: SEIZURE OF ONE 2001
36' CONTENDER VESSEL,

MISC. NO.: 14-321(SCC)

ORDER
On August 21, 2014, Claimant Guillermo J. Navarro-Torres
filed a request under Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) for the
return of seized property. Docket No. 1. The property in
question is a 36-foot 2001 Contender vessel, with registration
number PR-7959-GG, along with three outboard engines and
a trailer. Id. at 1. The vessel was seized on June 6, 2014, by
Homeland Security Investigations agents, allegedly without a
warrant. Id. at 1–2. According to Claimant’s Rule 41(g) motion,
no civil or criminal forfeiture proceedings are pending. Id. at 2.

IN RE SEIZURE OF 2001 36' CONTENDER VESSEL

Page 2

The Government acknowledges seizing the vessel, and it
says it, in compliance with the Civil Asset Reform Act of 2000,
it provided Claimant notice of the seizure on August 21, 2014.
See 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i). Furthermore, the Government
says that subsequent to Claimant’s Rule 41(g) motion, it
initiated a civil forfeiture action against the vessel. See United
States v. One (1) 2001 36' Contender, with 3-300 HP Engines (Dona
Barbara), Hull #JDJ36054D101, Vessel ID PR7959GG, Civ. No. 141840(DRD) (D.P.R. filed Nov. 20, 2014). More recently, the
vessel has been named as personal property subject to criminal
forfeiture upon the convction of “the defendants” in a criminal
case. See Indictment, United States v. Morales-Davila, Crim. No.
14-754(DRD) (D.P.R. filed Dec. 18, 2014) (naming the vessel in
a money laundering forfeiture allegation).1
These matters aside, the fact that the vessel is currently
subject to criminal and civil forfeiture proceedings—and that
the administrative forfeiture notice was filed before the Rule

1.

In opposing Claimant’s motion, the Government seems to admit that
Claimant has an ownership interest in the vessel, see Docket No. 6, at 2.
However, Claimant is not indicted in Crim. No. 14-754, and the
indictment in that case does not specify whose personal property the
vessel is alleged to be for the purposes of that case’s forfeiture
allegation.

IN RE SEIZURE OF 2001 36' CONTENDER VESSEL

Page 3

41(g) motion—means that a Rule 41(g) motion is inappropriate
at this time. Claimant’s remedy is in the pending the forfeiture
actions. See, e.g., United States v. Shigemura, 664 F.3d 310, 312–13
(10th Cir. 2011). Claimant’s motion is DENIED. This case is
hereby closed for statistical purposes.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 24th day of March, 2015.
S/ SILVIA CARREÑO-COLL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE