Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-mc-00075/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-mc-00075-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

1

Consent Judgment of Forfeiture

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPROXIMATELY $19,970.00 IN U.S. 

CURRENCY,

Defendant.

2:14-MC-00075-MCE-KJN

CONSENT JUDGMENT OF 

FORFEITURE

Pursuant to the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, the Court finds:

1. On December 18, 2013, agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration 

(“DEA”) contacted West at the Sacramento International Airport in Sacramento, 

California. Approximately $19,970.00 in U.S. Currency (“defendant currency”) was seized 

from Vanessa West (“West”) during this encounter. The DEA commenced administrative 

forfeiture proceedings, sending direct written notice to all known potential claimants and 

publishing notice to all others. On or about February 7, 2014, the DEA received a claim 

from West asserting an ownership interest in the defendant currency.

2. The United States represents that it could show at a forfeiture trial that on 

December 18, 2013, agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) received 

information regarding suspicious travel aboard United Airlines flight 1443 from La 

Guardia airport in New York City, New York to Sacramento, California. The ticket was 

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

MARILEE L. MILLER 

Assistant U. S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2700

Attorneys for the United States

Case 2:14-mc-00075-MCE-KJN Document 20 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Consent Judgment of Forfeiture

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

reserved under West’s name. DEA Agents observed West depart the jet way and enter the 

women’s bathroom. She exited a few minutes later and proceeded toward the terminal’s 

exit. West was carrying a small carry-on bag and a purse. A DEA Agent, displaying his 

badge, approached West and asked for permission to speak with her regarding her travel 

plans. West consented but was evasive when answering questions. 

3. The United States could further show at trial that agents asked if they 

could search West’s luggage, and she consented. West’s carry-on bag was searched, and 

several large rubber-banded stacks of cash were located concealed in clothing. When 

asked how much cash was in the bag, West stated a “couple thousand dollars.” West told 

agents that her “sugar daddy” had given her the money as a gift. West told agents she 

was a dental hygienist but later stated she was unemployed and her sugar daddy “takes 

care of her.” West said she filed an income tax return in 2012 but does not recall what 

she claimed as adjusted gross income. 

4. The United States could further show at trial that West accompanied the 

agents to a private room, where agents searched West’s purse and found two or three 

more rubber-banded stacks of cash. When asked again how much cash she was carrying, 

she changed her story and said $6,000.00. West continued to change her story, saying 

$9,000.00 and then $11,000.00. A bank count of the cash was $19,970.00. West claimed 

she had no idea how much cash she had because her sugar daddy, Cody, gave her the 

stacks of cash at a hotel and at a bar. West claimed that she did not know Cody’s last 

name or have a telephone number for him, but stated he works for a lawyer in New 

York. 

5. The United States could further show at trial that a drug dog positively 

alerted to the presence of the odor of narcotics on the defendant currency.

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). 

7. Without admitting the truth of the factual assertions contained above, 

Vanessa West specifically denying the same, and for the purpose of reaching an amicable 

Case 2:14-mc-00075-MCE-KJN Document 20 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Consent Judgment of Forfeiture

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

resolution and compromise of this matter agrees that an adequate factual basis exists to 

support forfeiture of the defendant currency. Vanessa West hereby acknowledges that 

she is the sole owner of the defendant currency, and that no other person or entity has 

any legitimate claim of interest therein. Should any person or entity institute any kind 

of claim or action against the government with regard to its forfeiture of the defendant 

currency, Vanessa West shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States, as set 

forth below.

8. This Court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 

and 1355, as this is the judicial district in which acts or omissions giving rise to the 

forfeiture occurred.

9. This Court has venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1395, as this is the judicial 

district in which the defendant currency was seized.

10. The parties herein desire to settle this matter pursuant to the terms of a 

duly executed Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture.

Based upon the above findings, and the files and records of the Court, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Court adopts the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture 

entered into by and between the parties.

2. Upon entry of this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, $12,470.00 of the 

Approximately $19,970.00 in U.S. Currency, together with any interest that may have 

accrued on the total amount seized, shall be forfeited to the United States pursuant to 21 

U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), to be disposed of according to law.

3. Upon entry of the Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, but no later than 60 

days thereafter, $7,500.00 of the Approximately $19,970.00 in U.S. Currency shall be 

returned to potential claimant Vanessa West through her attorney Justin T. Mixon.

4. The United States of America and its servants, agents, and employees and 

all other public entities, their servants, agents and employees, are released from any and 

all liability arising out of or in any way connected with the seizure or forfeiture of the 

Case 2:14-mc-00075-MCE-KJN Document 20 Filed 09/21/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Consent Judgment of Forfeiture

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

defendant currency. This is a full and final release applying to all unknown and 

unanticipated injuries, and/or damages arising out of said seizure or forfeiture, as well 

as to those now known or disclosed. Claimants waived the provisions of California Civil 

Code § 1542. 

5. No portion of the stipulated settlement, including statements or admissions 

made therein, shall be admissible in any criminal action pursuant to Rules 408 and 

410(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

6. All parties will bear their own costs and attorney’s fees.

7. Pursuant to the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture filed 

herein, the Court enters a Certificate of Reasonable Cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465, 

that there was reasonable cause for the seizure of the above-described defendant 

currency.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: September 18, 2015

Case 2:14-mc-00075-MCE-KJN Document 20 Filed 09/21/15 Page 4 of 4