Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06248/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06248-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donna Luann Lovett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

F !-

mwc1 Str 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

1 

.SEP2 18 

l\OB~RT L. HOECK~~~ 

C!erl: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

DONNA LUANN LOVETT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) Nos. 91-6248 

) 91-6307 & 

) 91-6322 

) (D.C. No. CR-90-197-W) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cases are therefore ordered 

Defendant-Appellant Donna Luann Lovett, prose, appeals the 

district court's adjudication of her interest in property ordered 

forfeited as a result of her husband's criminal convictions. Also 

before us is our stay of the disposition of two items of forfeited 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-6248 Document: 010110353500 Date Filed: 09/21/1992 Page: 1
personal property, which we granted pending the conclusion of Mr. 

Lovett's direct criminal appeal. 

Ms. Lovett and her husband Aaron Keith Lovett were indicted 

on several criminal counts alleging fraudulent acquisition of 

funds owned by Mr. Lovett's grandmother. Following a jury trial, 

Mr. Lovett was convicted of nine counts of interstate 

transportation of fraudulently obtained funds in violation of 

18 u.s.c. § 2314, fifteen counts of monetary transactions in 

property derived from unlawful activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1957, and four counts of money laundering in violation of 18 

u.s.c. § 1956. In addition, the jury ordered the forfeiture of 

various items of real and personal property pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 982. Ms. Lovett was acquitted of all criminal counts. 

On Ms. Lovett's motions, this court stayed disposition of the 

forfeited parcel of real estate and the 1990 GMC Suburban vehicle, 

pending resolution of this appeal, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(h). 

The district court was authorized to proceed with the disposition 

of the remaining forfeited property. Mr. Lovett's appeal was 

determined by this court in United States v. Lovett, 964 F.2d 1029 

(10th Cir. 1992), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. June 22, 

1992)(No. 91-8719). In that case, this court affirmed the counts 

resulting in forfeiture of the real estate and certain personal 

property not included in our stay order, but reversed Mr. Lovett's 

conviction on the counts requiring forfeiture of the Suburban 

vehicle. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6248 Document: 010110353500 Date Filed: 09/21/1992 Page: 2
I 

Stay of Disposition of Property 

On July 7, 1992, we issued an order requiring the parties to 

show cause why the stay should not be vacated, in light of this 

court's resolution of Mr. Lovett's criminal appeal. We have 

reviewed the responses filed by both parties, including Ms. 

Lovett's supplemental authorities. 1 Ms. Lovett requests the stay 

be extended until the merits of her claims here are decided, or 

until the United States Supreme Court rules on her husband's 

pending petition for a writ of certiorari. Because we now 

determine her claims on the merits, and because this court has 

resolved Mr. Lovett's direct criminal appeal, we vacate the stay 

issued by this court on December 16, 1991, for the disposition of 

the following property: 

(a) real estate commonly known as: 9804 Rockwell Terrace, 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, legally described as: Lot 14, in Block 

11, of Briarcreek Blocks 8-14, Inclusive, an addition to the City 

of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, subject to the 

district court's previous determination of her interest in the 

property, and 

(b) 1990 GMC Suburban, VIN 1GKEV16K4LF532394, subject to our 

remand in light of United States v. Lovett, 964 F.2d 1029. 

See United States v. Patrick, 965 F.2d 1390, 1398-99 (6th Cir. 

1 We express no opinion on the government's argument that the 

1990 GMC Suburban automobile was purchased with forfeited funds. 

See Plaintiff-Appellee's Memorandum Brief in Response to Court 

Order at 7. The disposition of the Suburban in Mr. Lovett's 

criminal case on remand is not an issue in this proceeding. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6248 Document: 010110353500 Date Filed: 09/21/1992 Page: 3
1992)("[T]here is no reason to stay the forfeiture proceedings 

here because we affirm [defendant's] conviction and because we 

uphold the district court's finding that the petitioners have no 

valid claim to the forfeited property."), petition for cert. 

filed, 61 U.S.L.W. 3150 (U.S. Aug. 11, 1992)(No. 92-269). 

II 

Merits 

On the merits, Ms. Lovett claims that the district court 

erred in its adjudication of her interest in the subject real and 

personal property. She claims a greater interest in all of the 

forfeited property than that adjudicated by the district court. 

Although no transcript of the district court proceedings has been 

provided by Ms. Lovett, as required by Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) 

when a party challenges the factual findings of the district 

court, the record on appeal is otherwise complete, including each 

of the numerous briefs filed with the district court in this case. 

We review factual determinations of the district court, such as 

the calculation of Ms. Lovett's interest in the forfeited 

property, under a clearly erroneous standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

52(a). Applying that standard, we find no basis in the record for 

upsetting the district court's determination as to Ms. Lovett's 

financial stake in the property at issue. 

III 

Conclusion 

The government's motion to strike portions of reply brief or 

in the alternative allow responsive brief is DENIED. 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-6248 Document: 010110353500 Date Filed: 09/21/1992 Page: 4
The stay of disposition of the forfeited property issued by 

this court on December 16, 1991, is VACATED. The judgment of the 

United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma 

regarding disposition of the Suburban automobile is REVERSED, and 

the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings only insofar as may 

be necessary in light of the reversal of Mr. Lovett's conviction 

based on the Suburban, and the corresponding forfeiture count. 

United States v. Lovett, 964 F.2d at 1036. The district court's 

judgment on the merits, including its determination of Ms. 

Lovett's interest in the forfeited properties, is AFFIRMED in all 

other respects. 

The mandates shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-6248 Document: 010110353500 Date Filed: 09/21/1992 Page: 5