Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-mc-00071/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-mc-00071-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Approximately $21,310.00 in U.S. Currency
Defendant
Ricardo Curiel Macedo
Claimant
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

30

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

30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPROXIMATELY $21,310.00 IN U.S. 

CURRENCY,

Defendant.

2:15-MC-00071-TLN-AC

CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE

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

1. On August 22, 2014, agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) 

contacted Ricardo Curiel Macedo (“Macedo”) at the Sacramento International Airport in Sacramento, 

California. Approximately $21,310.00 in U.S. Currency (“defendant currency”) was seized from 

Macedo 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 March 30, 

2015, the DEA received a claim from Macedo asserting an ownership interest in the defendant 

currency.

3. For the purposes of this settlement only, the Claimant does not contest the United 

States’ representation that it could show at a forfeiture trial the following: On August 22, 2014, agents 

with the DEA received information regarding travel by Lopez, Ricardo Macedo (“Macedo”), and 

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-00071-TLN-AC Document 20 Filed 05/16/16 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

30

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

30

Sheree Sandoval (“Sandoval”). Law enforcement agents responded to the terminal, observed Lopez 

exit the flight and make contact with Macedo and Sandoval. A law enforcement agent approached 

Lopez and requested permission to speak with him. The government contends that Lopez consented. 

The government contends that Macedo approached Lopez, and the agent asked Macedo if he was 

traveling with Lopez. The government contends that Macedo answered “yes.”

4. For the purposes of this settlement only, the Claimant does not dispute the United 

States’ representation that it could show at a forfeiture trial that the law enforcement agent asked and 

received consent from Lopez to search his luggage. The agent located a total of $20,000.00 in cash. 

The government contends that law enforcement agents also conducted a consensual search of 

Macedo’s luggage and located $21,310.00 in cash. 

5. For the purposes of this settlement only, the Claimant does not contest the United 

States’ representation that it could show at a forfeiture trial that the sums of cash were hidden 

separately from a drug detection dog, who located and positively alerted to the smell of narcotics on 

each. 

6. For the purposes of this settlement only, the Claimant does not contest 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). 

7. Without admitting the truth of the factual assertions contained in this stipulation, 

claimant 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. Ricardo Curiel Macedo hereby acknowledges 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.

8. 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.

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

Case 2:15-mc-00071-TLN-AC Document 20 Filed 05/16/16 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

30

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

30

which the defendant currency was seized.

10. 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 this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, $17,060.00 of the Approximately 

$21,310.00 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, 

$4,250.00 of the Approximately $21,310.00 in U.S. Currency shall be returned to claimant Ricardo 

Curiel Macedo through his attorney Jacek W. Lentz.

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 arising out of said 

seizure or forfeiture, as well as to those now known or disclosed. Claimants 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.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:15-mc-00071-TLN-AC Document 20 Filed 05/16/16 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

30

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

30

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: May 13, 2016

Case 2:15-mc-00071-TLN-AC Document 20 Filed 05/16/16 Page 4 of 4