Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01389/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01389-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
$20,000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY
Not Party
Hyon Ok Stallings
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1389

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

$20,000.00 in U.S. Currency, *

*

Defendant, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Hyon Ok Stallings, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 21, 2005

 Filed: September 27, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Claimant Hyon Ok Stallings appeals from the district court’s1

 adverse grant of

summary judgment in this civil forfeiture action.

Appellate Case: 04-1389 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2005 Entry ID: 1956411
-2-

We conclude summary judgment was proper because the government met its

burden of proving probable cause to forfeit the $20,000 at issue, and Stallings failed

to meet her burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the $20,000

was not connected to drug-trafficking activities. See United States v. Premises

Known as 7725 Unity Ave. N., Brooklyn Park, Minn., 294 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir.

2002) (burden shifting); United States v. $141,770 in U.S. Currency, 157 F.3d 600,

604 (8th Cir. 1998) (where large sums of money are not only stowed in an unusual

location, but are also wrapped in scented fabric softener sheets and sealed in zip-lock

bags, connection to drug trafficking cannot reasonably be disputed); United States v.

$41,305 in Currency and Travelers Checks, 802 F.2d 1339, 1344-45 (11th Cir. 1986)

(claimant must do more than show existence of possible legitimate sources for cash,

because possibility alone does not constitute preponderance of evidence defeating

forfeiture). We find no compelling reason to consider evidence Stallings attempts to

submit for the first time on appeal. See Rivers-Frison v. Se. Mo. Cmty. Treatment

Ctr., 133 F.3d 616, 619 n.2 (8th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1389 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2005 Entry ID: 1956411