Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-mc-00126/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-mc-00126-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Approximately $10,420.00 in U.S. Currency
Defendant
Approximately $10,480.00 in U.S. Currency
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 $10,480.00 IN U.S. 

CURRENCY, and 

APPROXIMATELY $10,420.00 IN U.S. 

CURRENCY,

Defendants.

2:15-MC-00126-MCE-EFB

CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE

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

1. On May 13, 2015, United States Postal Inspectors and the California Department of 

Justice, Mountain and Valley Marijuana Investigation Team conducted a marijuana interdiction 

operation at the USPS shipping facility in West Sacramento. During the operation, agents detained 

two parcels sent from D. W. Rominger at 2853 Cobalt Drive, Clarksville, Tennessee to Roberta Edd at 

P.O. Box 301, Orangevale, California. The labels were handwritten and sent “Express” delivery from 

the same sender to the same recipient. The parcels were also taped with silver colored duct tape and 

mailed from two different post offices. A drug detection dog also gave a positive alert for the odor of 

marijuana emanating from the parcels. The agents contacted the recipient of the parcels. The 

recipient volunteered that there was approximately $21,000.00 in cash collectively inside of the

parcels. The recipient gave her consent to open the packages. Agents found $10,480.00 in cash in one 

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

Assistant 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 2:15-mc-00126-MCE-EFB Document 22 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 4
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

and $10,420.00 in cash in the other (collectively hereafter, “defendant currency”). 

2. For the purposes of this settlement only, claimant does not contest the United States’ 

Representation that it could show at a forfeiture trial that once the parcels arrived at the West 

Sacramento facility, a drug detection dog positively alerted to both parcels. Postal Inspectors took 

custody of both parcels found at a residence address for Edd located at 9127 Greenback Lane in 

Orangevale. Law enforcement agents went to the address to interview Edd regarding the parcels. 

Agents arrived at the residence and knocked several times on the front door and windows but there 

was no answer. The trailer park manager stated that he had previously received parcels from the post 

office for Edd and that she is usually home. Agents knocked again and heard people inside the trailer. 

Alan Rominger (“Rominger”), Edd’s boyfriend and D.W. Rominger’s brother, answered the door 

agitated. Agents asked if Edd was available and told him they had two parcels addressed to Roberta. 

When asked about the contents of the parcels, Rominger answered by saying his brother sent the 

parcels and they contained $21,000.00 in cash. Rominger explained that his brother was repaying 

some loans, giving him money from their deceased mother’s life insurance benefits, and helping him 

repay a car loan. Edd gave consent to open the parcels.

3. For the purposes of this settlement only, claimant does not contest the United States’ 

representation that it could show at a forfeiture trial that each parcel contained a legal sized manila 

bubble padded envelope with cash sealed inside a vacuum sealed bag. Agents asked why the money 

was vacuum sealed and Rominger stated that it was sealed to secure the contents and heard from 

others of mail being stolen. Rominger said he had mail stolen in the past. Agents then asked Edd and 

Rominger which vehicle they were going to use the money to pay off. Edd replied it was her Nissan 

sedan that she owed about $8,000.00 on. Agents also asked why Rominger’s brother didn’t just wire 

the money to them and Rominger stated he didn’t want a money trail to him because he did not want 

to lose his social security. When asked for his brother’s contact information, Rominger asked, “If I do 

that, and you call him now, and he tells you the same thing we’re telling you, are you going to give her 

[Edd] the packages?” The agent answered that it did not work that way. Rominger stated that was 

“bullshit” and told the agents that they could find his brother’s phone number themselves.

Case 2:15-mc-00126-MCE-EFB Document 22 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 4
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

4. 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). 

5. Without admitting the truth of the factual assertions contained in this stipulation and 

for the purpose of reaching an amicable resolution and compromise of this matter, Edd agrees that an 

adequate factual basis exists to support forfeiture of the defendant currency. Edd hereby 

acknowledges that she 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.

6. 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.

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

which the defendant currency was seized.

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

Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture.

Based upon the above findings, and the files and records of the Court, it is hereby ORDERED 

AND ADJUDGED:

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

and between the parties.

2. Upon entry of the Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, Approximately $10,420.00 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 the Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, but no later than 60 days thereafter, 

Approximately $10,480.00 in U.S. Currency shall be returned to claimant Roberta Edd through her

attorney Thomas W. Barth.

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 

Case 2:15-mc-00126-MCE-EFB Document 22 Filed 08/01/16 Page 3 of 4
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

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. Claimant waives 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: July 29, 2016

Case 2:15-mc-00126-MCE-EFB Document 22 Filed 08/01/16 Page 4 of 4