Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-mc-00411/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-mc-00411-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Approximately $32,600.00 in U.S. Currency
Defendant
Deaareon Fleming
Claimant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPROXIMATELY $32,600.00 IN U.S. 

CURRENCY,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-mc-00411-DC-AC

CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE

On January 14, 2025, Plaintiff United States and Claimant Deaareon Fleming filed a 

stipulation for the entry of a consent judgment of forfeiture in this action. (Doc. No. 6.)

Pursuant to that stipulation, the court finds the following:

1. On May 7, 2024, agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) 

contacted Deaareon Fleming (“Fleming” or “Claimant”) at the Sacramento International Airport 

in Sacramento, California. Approximately $32,600.00 in U.S. Currency (hereafter “Defendant 

currency”) was seized from Fleming during this encounter. 

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 July 19, 

2024, the DEA received a claim from Fleming asserting an ownership interest in the Defendant 

currency.

3. The United States represents that it could show at a forfeiture trial that on May 7, 

Case 2:24-mc-00411-DC-AC Document 8 Filed 01/16/25 Page 1 of 5
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

2

2024, Fleming was scheduled to travel on American Airlines Flight 2087 from Dallas, Texas to 

Sacramento, California, with his origin of travel that day being Atlanta, Georgia. Law 

enforcement received information regarding a suspicious ticket purchase by Fleming, including

the purchase of his ticket one day prior to his travel with his return trip approximately 24 hours 

later.

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

May 7, 2024, law enforcement responded to the Sacramento International Airport and 

positioned themselves at the outdoor baggage drop off area associated with Fleming’s incoming 

fight. They located a blue hard-shell suitcase that had indicators of narcotics trafficking, to 

include the suitcase was new, still had plastic wrap on the handles, and was very light in weight 

considering the size of the suitcase. A drug detection dog alerted to the odor of narcotics on the 

suitcase. Law enforcement detected a strong odor of marijuana coming from within the suitcase. 

The suitcase had a tag with Fleming’s name on it. Law enforcement then discovered that 

Fleming was not on the flight but was scheduled to arrive at a later time that day, even though 

his suitcase was on the current flight. Law enforcement secured the suitcase.

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

law enforcement returned to the airport later that afternoon and waited for Fleming’s updated 

flight, American Airlines flight 2078 to arrive. They had control of Fleming’s blue suitcase in 

Terminal A. When Fleming noticed law enforcement with his suitcase, he pulled out his cell 

phone, brought it up to his ear, and then diverted his walking path away from law enforcement. 

They approached Fleming and he confirmed his identity and that the suitcase belonged to him. 

Law enforcement asked Fleming if he had any narcotics in the suitcase and he responded, “there 

shouldn’t be.”

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

another law enforcement officer and another drug detection dog approached Fleming. The drug 

detection dog immediately went to the blue satchel bag that Fleming was carrying and alerted to 

the odor of narcotics on it. Law enforcement asked for consent to search the suitcase to which 

Fleming consented. While law enforcement was searching the suitcase, they asked Fleming how 

Case 2:24-mc-00411-DC-AC Document 8 Filed 01/16/25 Page 2 of 5
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

3

much currency he was traveling with. Fleming initially stated, “not a lot.” When law 

enforcement asked Fleming for clarification, he said, “maybe 10-15,” meaning $10,000–

$15,000. When asked if they could see the currency Fleming zipped open the blue satchel bag 

he was carrying and showed them several large stacks of cash in various denominations. Based 

on their training and experience, law enforcement believed there was more than $10,000–

$15,000. Law enforcement asked Fleming if he would accompany them to a separate room to 

complete the search and Fleming agreed.

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

once in the separate room, the suitcase and satchel were placed on the table where they 

continued their search. The drug detection dog was deployed again, and he immediately put his 

paw on the table and alerted on the blue satchel bag.

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

law enforcement found several packs of pre-packaged, personal use marijuana packages inside 

the large blue suitcase, along with three orange-colored pills, later determined to be Adderall. 

Fleming admitted they were his, but he did not know the marijuana was inside the suitcase 

because he did not pack it.

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

law enforcement continued with a search of the blue satchel bag and found five stacks of cash. 

Law enforcement asked Fleming what he was going to do with the cash and he stated that he 

was coming from Atlanta to buy “Double XL Bulldogs.” Fleming said he was going to drive 

from Sacramento either to Antioch or Pittsburg to purchase the dogs and that he did not know 

where he was going to stay yet. Fleming initially said that he was in California for a few days, 

but when asked if he had a return ticket, Fleming stated that he was flying out tomorrow (the 

following day). Fleming claimed he bred dogs for a living. A later bank count of the cash seized 

from Fleming’s blue satchel bag totaled $32,600.00— the Defendant currency.

10. 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).

11. Without admitting the truth of the factual assertions contained above, Claimant 

Case 2:24-mc-00411-DC-AC Document 8 Filed 01/16/25 Page 3 of 5
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

4

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

compromise of this matter, Claimant agrees that an adequate factual basis exists to support 

forfeiture of the Defendant currency. Fleming acknowledged 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, Claimant shall hold harmless and indemnify the 

United States, as set forth below.

12. 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.

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

which the Defendant currency was seized.

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

executed Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture.

Based on the above findings, and the files and records filed in this action, the court orders 

as follows:

1. The court adopts the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture entered into 

by and between the parties (Doc. No. 6).

2. Upon entry of this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, $18,000.00 of the 

Approximately $32,600.00 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, $14,600.00 of the Approximately $32,600.00 in U.S. Currency shall be returned to 

Claimant Deaareon Fleming through his attorney Eric A. Pack.

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 

Case 2:24-mc-00411-DC-AC Document 8 Filed 01/16/25 Page 4 of 5
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

5

arising out of said seizure or forfeiture, as well as to those now known or disclosed. Claimant 

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: January 16, 2025 ___________________________

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Case 2:24-mc-00411-DC-AC Document 8 Filed 01/16/25 Page 5 of 5