Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02261/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02261-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Seven Firearms and Ammunition
Not Party
United States of America
Appellee
Tammy Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2261

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Seven Firearms and Ammunition; *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant, *

*

Tammy Wilson, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 7, 2004

Filed: November 24, 2004

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Tammy Wilson challenges the district court’s1

 adverse grant of

summary judgment, and the denial of her cross-motion for summary judgment, in this

18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1) action to forfeit and condemn seven firearms and various

Appellate Case: 03-2261 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2004 Entry ID: 1837836 
-2-

ammunition (defendant property) for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (unlawful

for felon to possess firearms or ammunition). We affirm. 

Contrary to Wilson’s arguments, the district court had jurisdiction over this

action, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1355(a) (district courts have original jurisdiction over action

for forfeiture under any Act of Congress), (b) (forfeiture action may be brought in

district in which any acts giving rise to forfeiture occurred or in district specified by

28 U.S.C. § 1395), and 1395(b) (forfeiture proceeding may be prosecuted in district

where defendant property is found), and the action was not untimely because the

government began administrative forfeiture proceedings by publishing notice 37 days

after the defendant property was seized, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1) (“Any action or

proceeding for the forfeiture of firearms or ammunition shall be commenced within

one hundred and twenty days of such seizure.”); United States v. Ninety-Three

Firearms, 330 F.3d 414, 417, 422-23 (6th Cir. 2003) (federal agency commenced

administrative forfeiture proceedings by publication; § 924(d)(1) does not mandate

that judicial actions be brought within 120 days of seizure, as long as administrative

proceeding has been brought within that timeframe).

As to the merits of Wilson’s claimed interest in the defendant property, we

assume without deciding that Wilson inherited an ownership interest in the defendant

property from her deceased husband, and that she could assert the defense of innocent

ownership. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(d)(1) (innocent owner’s interest in property shall not

be forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute), (d)(2)(A)(i) (innocent owner means

owner who did not know of conduct giving rise to forfeiture). We conclude,

however, that Wilson did not show she was an innocent owner, because she knew her

husband was a convicted felon who could not legally possess the defendant property.

Hence, the defendant property was subject to forfeiture. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2261 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2004 Entry ID: 1837836