Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-95-02162/USCOURTS-ca10-95-02162-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Curtis German
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

. ' 

PUBLISH 

FILED . UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UlllteclStatesCourtofAppa:..J 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

DANIEL CURTIS GERMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Tenth Circult 

JAN 31 1996 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

No. 95-2162 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Mexico 

(D.C. No. CR-95-108-HB) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

John J. Kelly, United States Attorney, and Kelly H. Burnham, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Las Cruces, New Mexico, for 

Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Joseph (SIB) Abraham, Jr., El Paso, Texas, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Before KELLY and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and 0' CONNOR, Senior 

District Judge.* 

O'CONNOR, Senior District Judge. 

* The Honorable Earl E. O'Connor, Senior United States District 

Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 95-2162 Document: 01019287546 Date Filed: 01/31/1996 Page: 1 
ll· 

.. The defendant, Daniel Curtis German, was indicted for 

possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of 

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841 (a) (1) and (b) (1) (B). He 

appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to 

dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds. We find that we 

have jurisdiction of this appeal and affirm. 1 

I. Background 

The relevant facts are not in dispute. On February 11, 1995, 

German was arrested for transporting over 700 pounds of marijuana 

in the truck he was driving. At the time of his arrest, a Drug 

Enforcement Administration ("DEA") agent seized the truck and gave 

German a DEA notice entitled "Notice of Seizure of a Conveyance for 

a Drug-Related Offense." The notice advised German that the truck 

was seized because it was used to transport drugs and to facilitate 

drug trafficking, and was subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 

U.S.C. § 88l(a) (4) The notice also informed defendant that he 

would receive a separate notice providing further details of the 

1After examining the briefs and the appellate record, the 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist the determination of this appeal. ~ Fed. 

R.App. P. 34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

2 

Appellate Case: 95-2162 Document: 01019287546 Date Filed: 01/31/1996 Page: 2 
seizure and his available rights at a later date. In addition, the 

notice stated: 

Upon the filing of a claim and the posting of a 

cost bond, the merits of the claim and the 

determination of forfeiture will be conducted 

through a judicial proceeding pursuant to Title 

21, U.S.C. Section 881; Title 19, U.S.C., 

Sections 1602-1608; and Title 21, C.F.R. Sections 

1316.17-1316.81 and Sections 1316.90-1316.99. 

Defendant signed the notice acknowledging receipt of the same. 

The DEA subsequently sent German another document relating to 

the truck entitled "Notice of Seizure," dated March 20, 1995. On 

March 25, 1995, German signed a Domestic Return Receipt 

acknowledging receipt of the Notice of Seizure. The prefatory 

language in the Notice of Seizure provided in part: 

You may petition the DEA for the return of the 

property or your interest in it (remission or 

mitigation) , and/or you may contest the seizure 

and forfeiture of the property in court. Also, 

under certain circumstances, you may petition for 

the expedited release of the property. You 

should review the following procedures very 

carefully. 

Notice of Seizure (emphasis in original). With regard to the 

specific procedure for contesting the forfeiture of the seized 

property, the Notice of Seizure explained that: 

In addition to or in lieu of petitioning for 

remission or mitigation, you may contest the 

forfeiture of the seized property in UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT. To do so, you must file 

3 

Appellate Case: 95-2162 Document: 01019287546 Date Filed: 01/31/1996 Page: 3 
a claim of ownership and cost bond with the DEA. 

If you are indigent (needy or poor) you 

may not have to post the bond. To request a 

waiver of the bond, you must fully disclose your 

finances in a signed statement called a 

"Declaration in Support of Request to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis" along with a claim of ownership 

of the property. The claim of ownership, 

with either bond or the "Declaration in Support 

of Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis" must be 

filed within twenty (20) days of the first date 

of publication of the notice of seizure in the 

edition of USA Today newspaper referenced above. 

Id. (emphasis in original) . The Notice of Seizure stated that the 

date of first publication of the notice of seizure would be 

March 29, 1995. Thus, in order for defendant to timely file the 

papers necessary to properly contest the forfeiture of the truck, 

he needed to file a claim of ownership, along with a cost bond or 

an in forma pauperis declaration, by April 18, 1995. 

On April 26, 1995, the DEA received from defendant an 

"Affidavit in Forma Pauperis." The next day, the DEA sent German•s 

attorney a letter, advising that the DEA was returning the in forma 

pauperis affidavit because it had been filed after the April 18th 

deadline date. The letter further advised that, as a matter of 

discretion, the DEA would allow German twenty days from receipt of 

the letter to file a petition for an administrative ruling. 

Within the twenty days provided by the DEA, German submitted 

a petition for remission and/or mitigation consisting of a letter 

4 

Appellate Case: 95-2162 Document: 01019287546 Date Filed: 01/31/1996 Page: 4 
signed under oath dated May 15, 1995, and the affidavit in forma 

pauperis he had previously filed. German's truck was forfeited and 

sold at auction on July 20, 1995. 

On appeal, German contends that the forfeiture of the truck 

constituted punishment within the meaning of the double jeopardy 

clause, and the government's current prosecution against him for 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) subjects him to double jeopardy. 

II. Discussion 

As an initial matter, we first address the government's 

argument that the court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Our 

authority to hear the appeal stems from Abney v. United States, 431 

u.s. 651 (1977). There, the Supreme Court held that appellate 

courts have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a pretrial 

order denying dismissal sought on double jeopardy grounds. Id. at 

663. The Court reasoned that, as the double jeopardy clause 

forbids a second trial, such a denial was within the "collateral 

order" exception to the final judgment rule of appellate 

jurisdiction. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to hear 

German's interlocutory appeal of the pretrial order denying his 

motion to dismiss the superseding indictment on double jeopardy 

grounds. 

5 

Appellate Case: 95-2162 Document: 01019287546 Date Filed: 01/31/1996 Page: 5 
A district court's denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment 

on double jeopardy grounds is reviewed~ llQYQ. United States v. 

Hudson, 14 F.3d 536, 539 (lOth Cir. 1994). The underlying factual 

findings of the district court are reviewed for clear error. 

O'Connor v. R.F. Lafferty & Co .. Inc., 965 F.2d 893, 901 (lOth Cir. 

1992) . 

The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution prohibits successive prosecution or 

multiple punishment for "the same offense." 

States, u.s. I 115 s . Ct . 219 9 I 2 2 0 2 ( 19 9 5 ) 

Witte v. United 

Significantly, 

the language of the clause protects against more than the actual 

imposition of two punishments for the same offense; by its terms, 

it protects a criminal defendant from being twice put in jeopardy 

for such punishment. ~at 2204. 

The Fifth Amendment's guarantee against double jeopardy 

protects against three types of abuses: (1) a second prosecution 

for the same offense after an acquittal; (2) a second prosecution 

for the same offense after a conviction, and (3) multiple 

punishments for the same offense. United States v. HalQer, 490 

U.S. 435, 440 (1989); see also United States v. McDermott, 64 F.3d 

1448, 1454 (lOth Cir. 1995), petition .fur. cert. filed, (U.S. 

Nov. 6, 1995) (No. 95-6653). Multiple punishments are permissible 

6 

Appellate Case: 95-2162 Document: 01019287546 Date Filed: 01/31/1996 Page: 6 
if imposed in the same proceeding, but are impermissible if imposed 

in separate proceedings. United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. at 450-

451. 

The district court, in denying the defendant 1 s motion to 

dismiss the superseding indictment, stated as follows: 

Several courts have held that a defendant 

who fails to judicially contest a civil 

forfeiture by filing a claim of ownership and 

bond never becomes a party to the forfeiture 

proceeding and thus is neither punished nor 

placed in jeopardy. ~ ~' United States v. 

Torres, 28 F.3d 1463 (7th Cir.) (no double 

jeopardy without former jeopardy in uncontested 

forfeiture action because defendant did not 

become a party in forfeiture proceeding); cert. 

denied, 115 S. Ct. 669 (1994); United States v. 

Arreola-Ramos, F.3d , 1995 WL 428059 (5th Cir. 

1995) (same); United States y. Nakamoto, 876 F. 

Supp. 235 (D. Haw. 1995); United States v. Walsh, 

873 F. Supp. 334 (D. Ariz. 1994); United States 

v. Kemmish, 869 F. Supp. 803 (S.D. Cal. 1994). 

7 

In the instant case, 

Defendant did not 

judicially contest the 

forfeiture of the semitruck by filing a claim 

of ownership and bond. 

Instead, Defendant 

elected to pursue only 

his administrative remedy 

by filing a Petition for 

Remission. In an 

analogous case, Orallo v. 

United States of America, 

the court stated: 

Appellate Case: 95-2162 Document: 01019287546 Date Filed: 01/31/1996 Page: 7 
[A] petitioner seeking remission or 

mitigation of a forfeiture does not 

necessarily contest the legitimacy of 

a forfeiture. In fact, under 

remission/mitigation procedures, 

forfeitability is presumed and the 

petitioner seeks relief from 

forfeiture on fairness grounds. 

* * * * * * 

A petition for remission or mitigation 

does not resolve the issue of personal 

culpability, in fact, forfeiture is 

presumed. Jeopardy can only attach in 

a proceeding involving a determination 

of guilt. 

F. Supp. __ , 1995 WL 319489 at *3 (D. Haw. May 

23, 1995) (internal citations omitted); ~ ~~ 

United States v. Crowell, Cr. 90-464 PHX RCB (D. 

Ariz. April 28, 1995) (Double Jeopardy Clause does 

not relieve defendants from the consequences of 

their choice to pursue a course which had effect 

of avoiding any judicial finding of personal 

culpability; thus jeopardy did not attach.) 

Like the defendant in Orallo, Defendant's 

culpability was never adjudicated in the 

forfeiture proceeding. Therefore, Defendant was 

never placed in jeopardy or "punished" in any 

constitutional sense because he was never a party 

in any proceeding designed to adjudicate his 

personal culpability. "A person who avoids an 

adjudication of his or her guilt or innocence 

cannot later claim double jeopardy when the 

government seeks to obtain such an adjudication 

in a later proceeding." Kemmish, 869 F. Supp. at 

805. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 

the Superseding Indictment is denied. 

United States v. German, No. 95-108, slip op. at 3-5 (D. N.M. 

1995) . 

8 

Appellate Case: 95-2162 Document: 01019287546 Date Filed: 01/31/1996 Page: 8 
• 

In sum, the district court held that German's culpability was 

never adjudicated because he did not judicially contest the 

forfeiture by filing a claim of ownership and bond in district 

court, but instead elected to pursue only his administrative remedy 

by filing a Petition for Remission. Because defendant's 

culpability was never adjudicated, he was never placed in jeopardy 

or "punished" for double jeopardy purposes. 

Several federal courts have addressed this issue. In United 

States v. Torres, 28 F.3d 1463 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 

669 (1994), Torres, a narcotics trafficker, was arrested in a sting 

operation during the commission of a drug transaction. He was 

prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment for various 

drug offenses. On the date of his arrest, federal agents seized 

$60,000 he had presented to undercover agents for the purchase of 

cocaine. Prosecutors thereafter instituted forfeiture proceedings 

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a) (6), on the grounds that the money 

was used in an illegal drug transaction. Torres received notice 

inviting him to make a claim in the civil forfeiture proceeding. 

He, however, failed to make any claim. Torres later sought to have 

the administrative forfeiture of the $60,000 adjudicated prior 

jeopardy barring his criminal conviction and imprisonment. In 

rejecting Torres' request, the Seventh Circuit reasoned: 

9 

Appellate Case: 95-2162 Document: 01019287546 Date Filed: 01/31/1996 Page: 9 
[P]arallel administrative and criminal actions do 

not necessarily violate the double jeopardy 

clause. Torres received notice inviting him to 

make a claim in the civil forfeiture proceeding. 

He did not. As a result, he did not become a 

party to the forfeiture. There was no trial; the 

$60,000 was forfeited without opposition, and 

jeopardy did not attach. You can't have double 

jeopardy without a former jeopardy. Serfass v. 

United States, 420 U.S. 377, 389, 95 S. Ct. 1055, 

1063, 43 L.Ed.2d 265 (1975). As a non-party, 

Torres was not at risk in the forfeiture 

proceeding, and " [w] ithout risk of a 

determination of guilt, jeopardy does not attach, 

and neither an appeal nor further prosecution 

constitutes double jeopardy." l..Q...._ at 391-92, 95 

S.Ct. at 1064. 

Torres, 28 F.3d at 1465. 

The Torres court buttressed its decision that jeopardy did not 

attach as a result of the forfeiture of the drug money on the fact 

that Torres failed to make a claim in the civil forfeiture 

proceeding and thus was a non-party. The Third and Fifth Circuits 

have likewise held that where a defendant does not contest a civil 

forfeiture, jeopardy does not attach and, therefore, the 

protections of the double jeopardy clause are not invoked. ~ 

United States v. Baird, 63 F.3d 1213 (3rd Cir. 1995), petition for 

cert. filed, 64 USLW 3318 (Oct. 17, 1995) (No. 95-630); United 

States v. Arreola-Ramos, 60 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 1995). 

German does not undertake to distinguish Torres, Baird, or 

Arreola-Ramos. Instead, he urges this court to follow the few 

- 10 -

Appellate Case: 95-2162 Document: 01019287546 Date Filed: 01/31/1996 Page: 10 
• 

district court decisions that have deemed a party's failure to 

contest forfeiture irrelevant for purposes of raising a double 

jeopardy argument. Specifically, he directs our attention to: 

United States v. Aguilar, 886 F. Supp. 740 (E.D. Wash. 1994) 

(McDonald, J.) ("It is irrelevant whether, as the government 

claims, Aguilar failed to contest the forfeiture."); United States 

v. Heitzman, 886 F. Supp. 737 (E.D. Wash. 1994) (McDonald, J.) 

(civil administrative forfeiture provided initial jeopardy even 

though defendant failed to file a claim in the administrative 

forfeiture proceeding); and United States v. Ailemen, 893 F. Supp. 

888 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (court held that government imposed a 

punishment on the defendant by forfeiting defendant's money, even 

though defendant failed to make a formal appearance in the 

forfeiture proceeding) . 

Any persuasive authority that Aguilar and Heitzman may have 

had is completely undercut by the more recent case of United States 

v. Bradford, 886 F. Supp. 744 (E.D. Wa. 1995), in which Judge 

McDonald took an approach directly opposite to that which he had 

articulated in Aguilar and Heitzman. ("[A] defendant who elects 

not to contest the forfeiture of his property . cannot avoid 

the adjudication of his personal culpability at one stage, then 

suddenly assert that the forfeiture of these items has exposed him 

- 11 -

Appellate Case: 95-2162 Document: 01019287546 Date Filed: 01/31/1996 Page: 11 
to jeopardy when such a position becomes advantageous." 

748.) As explanation for his change in stance, Judge McDonald 

noted that at the time of his decisions in Aguilar and Heitzman, 

the court was without the benefit of the more recently decided 

cases from other jurisdictions. Id. 

We view those cases relied upon by defendant as contrary to 

the better rule, and against the weight of authority. This court 

chooses to follow the reasoning of the majority view as succinctly 

expressed by our sister circuits in Torres and Arreola-Ramos. 

Under the facts of the instant case, we hold that jeopardy did 

not attach: German was never placed in jeopardy or "punished" in 

any constitutional sense because he was never a party to any 

proceeding designed to adjudicate his personal culpability. His 

subsequent criminal prosecution is not barred by double jeopardy. 

AFFIRMED. 

- 12 -

Appellate Case: 95-2162 Document: 01019287546 Date Filed: 01/31/1996 Page: 12