Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-mc-00155/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-mc-00155-4/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 $15,435.00 IN U.S. 

CURRENCY, 

Defendant.

2:14-MC-00155-MCE-EFB

CONSENT JUDGMENT OF 

FORFEITURE

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

1. On May 9, 2014, the California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) seized 

Approximately $15,435.00 in U.S. Currency (the “defendant currency”) from Agamirov 

during a traffic stop in Truckee, California. The Drug Enforcement Administration 

(“DEA”) adopted the defendant currency for federal forfeiture on June 16, 2014.

2. The DEA commenced administrative forfeiture proceedings, sending direct 

written notice to all known potential claimants and publishing notice to all others. On or 

about October 2, 2014, the DEA received a claim from Agamirov asserting ownership 

interest in the defendant currency.

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

May 9, 2014, CHP conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle driven by Agamirov. The vehicle 

was also occupied by Matthew Cassidy (“Cassidy”). As the law enforcement agent 

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN

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-00155-MCE-EFB Document 11 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 5
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

approached the vehicle, he could smell the odor of burnt marijuana. A narcotics canine 

unit responded, and the dog positively alerted to the presence of the odor of a controlled 

substance around the vehicle’s exterior. The vehicle was searched, and law enforcement 

agents located a suitcase in the trunk containing $14,800.00. The cash was comprised of 

615 $20.00 bills and 25 $100.00 bills, separated into three bundles, double banded, and 

concealed inside a folded shirt. Another $635.00 was seized from Agamirov’s wallet. 

4. The United States represents that it could further show at a forfeiture trial 

that during the search of the vehicle, it was determined that the right rear quarter panel 

had been modified to create a void. The inside of the void had large scrapes that appeared 

to have been made with a metal yardstick that was located inside the trunk. Law 

enforcement agents believe the yardstick was used to push items in or retrieve items out 

of the void. 

5. The United States represents that it could further show at a forfeiture trial 

that Cassidy and Agamirov were interviewed separately and provided conflicting stories. 

Cassidy told law enforcement agents that he and Agamirov had left Kansas on May 8th

and traveled straight through to California, stopping only for food and gas. He said the 

two planned to visit family and friends in California before returning to Kansas for 

Mother’s Day (May 11th). Cassidy told law enforcement agents that he borrowed the car 

from his girlfriend and explained the marijuana smell was a result of him recently 

smoking marijuana in the car. Cassidy initially said there were no large amounts of 

money in the car, but later stated that he knew Agamirov had money in his suitcase but 

didn’t know how much or why. Cassidy signed a form disclaiming ownership of the seized 

cash. 

6. The United States represents that it could further show at a forfeiture trial 

that Agamirov gave conflicting stories about his travels. Initially, Agamirov told law 

enforcement agents that he and Cassidy had only stopped once, in Wyoming, but later said 

that they had stopped several times along the way for food, gas, and gambling. He also 

said they had stopped to visit a friend in Colorado for a couple hours. Agamirov originally 

Case 2:14-mc-00155-MCE-EFB Document 11 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 5
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

told law enforcement agents that there were no large amounts of money in the car, but 

later said that he had started the trip with $16,000.00 but only had $10,000.00 remaining. 

He said he had spent the $6,000.00 on food, gas, and gambling. Agamirov claimed the 

money and provided various explanations as to its origin, including proceeds from selling a 

car, income from work he does for his father, and a gift from his parents. He said he does 

not have a checking or savings account, and the money was his savings from the past year. 

7. The United States could further show at trial that the defendant currency 

was later presented to a drug detection dog, and the dog positively alerted to the presence 

of the odor of narcotics.

8. 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). 

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

Kamal Emil Agamirov specifically denying the same, and for the purpose of reaching an 

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

exists to support forfeiture of the defendant currency. Kamal Emil Agamirov hereby 

acknowledges that he 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, Kamal Emil Agamirov shall hold harmless and 

indemnify the United States, as set forth below.

10. 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.

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

district in which the defendant currency was seized.

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

duly executed Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture.

Case 2:14-mc-00155-MCE-EFB Document 11 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 5
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

ORDER

Based upon the above findings, the parties signed stipulation (ECF No. 10), and 

the files and records of the Court, it is hereby ORDERED:

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, $7,718.00 of the 

$15,435.00 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 this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, but no later than 60 

days thereafter, $7,717.00 of the $15,435.00 in U.S. Currency shall be returned to 

claimant Kamal Emil Agamirov through his attorney Victor S. Haltom.

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 

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.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:14-mc-00155-MCE-EFB Document 11 Filed 06/01/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

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: May 29, 2015

Case 2:14-mc-00155-MCE-EFB Document 11 Filed 06/01/15 Page 5 of 5