2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-9-2008 

# U SA v . Eli an a R a s pino P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2218

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . El i a n a R asp ino " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 382. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/382CL D- 3 0 2 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 2218

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . E L I ANA R AS P I NO * E lian a R a sp in o ; R o b e rt Jo y c e , A p p e llan ts (*P u rsua n t t o F . R . A . P . 1 2 (a))

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( E . D . Pa. C r i m . N o. 04- cr - 00182) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Eduar do R obr eno

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 Sept ember25, 2008 A M B R O , FU E N T E S and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober9, 2008)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM E l i ana Raspi no and R ober tJ oy ce, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l a fi nal or derof2

for fei tur e ent er ed byt he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. Fort he r eas ons di s cus s ed bel ow , w e w i l l di s m i s s R as pi no’ s appea l and af firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. R as pi no and J oy ce w er e convi ct ed of ba nkrupt cyfr aud, cons pi r acy , and other cr i m es . I n 2005, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d t hem each t o 36 m ont hs i n pr i s on. T he D istric t C o u rt a lso e n ter e d a f in a l o rd e r o f

f o rf e itu re a n d f

o rf e itu re m o n e yju d g m e n t in favorof the U ni t ed St at es and aga i ns tR as pi no i n t he amountof $211, 000, w hi ch r epr es ent ed the val ue of the pr ocee ds of, and pr oper t yi nvol ved i n, heroffe ns es . I n 2007, w e af fi r m ed the j udgm ent s of convi ct i on. A ft ers ent enci ng, t he G overnm entl earned thatR as pi no ow ned pr oper t yi n N ew Je rse y . T h e G o v e rn m e n t m o v e d to a m e n d th e o rd e r o f f o rf e itu re p u rsu a n t to F e d e ra l R u le of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e 32. 2( e) t o i ncl ude the N ew J er s eypr oper t yas a s ubs t i tut e fort he pr oper t yt hatw as or der ed for fei t ed. O n M ay3, 2007, t he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued an amended or derof for fei tur e, fi ndi ng t hatt he pr ocee ds of, and the pr oper t yi nvol ved i n, th e o f f e n se s w e re n o lo n g e r a v a ilab le f o r f o rf e itu re , an d th a t R a sp in o h a d a n in ter e st in t he N ew J er s eypr oper t y . T he D i s t r i ctC our tor der ed thatt he U ni t ed St at es s hal l have c le a r t itle to th e N e w J e rs e yp ro p e rt yf o llo w in g th e d is p o s itio n o f a ll th ir d -p a rt yin te re s ts . R as pi no and J oy ce, w ho l i ved w i t h R as pi no on t he pr oper t y , m oved forr el i ef f r om t he o rd e r. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n ie d th e m o tio n s in a n o rd e r e n te re d o n S e p te m b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 . Jo y c e ’s m o tio n w a s d e n ied w ith o u t p re ju d ice , ap p a re n tlyso th a t h e c o u ld f ile a th ird -p a rtyT he G overnm enthad ac know l edged tw o i nform al cl ai m s and r epr es ent ed thati thad 1 agr eed w i t h t he cl ai m ant s t o s et t l e the cl ai m s aft ert he pr oper t yw as s ol d. 3 c l a i m a s s e r t i n g a n i n t e r e s ti n t h e p r o p e r t y. O n A p ri l 4, 20 0 8 , the D istri ct C o u rtissue d a jud g m en t and fin al ord er o f f o rfe itu re of s ubs t i tut e as s et s pr ovi di ng t hatt he pr oper t yw as ful l yand fi nal l yfor fei t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es pur s uantt o 21 U . S. C . § 853. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed thatt he G overnm ent had publ i s hed not i ce of t he amended or derof for fei tur e, t hatdi r ectw r i t t en not i ce w as pr ovi ded t o al l per s ons know n byt he G overnm entt o have a l l eged a n i nt er es ti n t he pr oper t y , and thatno for m al cl ai m s had bee n fi l ed w i t h t he court . T he pr es entappea l 1 fol l ow ed. T he G overnm entcorr ect l yar gues t hatR as pi no l acks s t andi ng t o chal l enge the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s A pr i l 4, 2008, or der . R as pi no’ s i nt er es ti n t he pr oper t yw as det erm i ned b ythe D istri ct C o u rto n M ay3 , 2 0 0 7 , w h en the D istri ct C o u rtam en d ed it s fo rfe itu re or dert o i ncl ude the s ubs t i tut e as s et s . See U ni t ed St at es v. Pel ul l o, 178 F. 3d 196, 202 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (n o tin g th a t a f o rf e itu re o rd e r e n ter e d a t se n ten c in g c o n c lu siv e lyd e ter m in e s a ll o f th e d e f e n d a n t’ s in te re s t in th e f o rf e ite d p ro p e rt ya n d is f

in a l f o r p u rp o s e s o f

a p p e a l) . R as pi no di d notappea l t he M ay3, 2007, or derort he Sept ember17, 2007, deni al of her m o tio n f o r r e lie f f ro m th a t o rd e r. A nyanci l l arypr ocee di ngs t hatt ook pl ace t her eaf t erw er e forper s ons ot hert han R asp ino w h o m ayh av e w an ted to asse rta c lai m to the p rop ertyb ef o re the fin al fo rfe itu re o c c u rre d . S e e id . (ex p lain in g th a t a d e f e n d a n t g e n e ra llyh a s n o sta n d in g to p a rticip a te inA l t hough Pel ul l o i nvol ved the R I C O for fei tur e pr ocedur es i n 18 U . S. C . § 1963, t he 2 for fei tur e pr ocedur es appl i ed her e s i m i l ar l ypr ovi de that“[a ] nyper s on, ot hert han the d e f e n d a n t , ” ma ya s s e r ta n i n t e r e s ti n t h e p r o p e r t yi n t h e a n c i l l a r yp r o c e e d i n g s . 2 1 U. S . C. § 8 5 3 (n)(2 ). 4 t he anc i l l arypr ocee di ngs t hatt ake pl ace aft ert he for fei tur e or deri s ent er ed ats ent enci ng beca us e the def

endantno l ongerhas an i nt er es ti n t he pr oper t y ) . B eca us e R as pi no has no 2 in ter e st im p lica ted b yth e A p ril 4 , 2 0 0 8 , o rd e r, sh e lac k s s tan d in g to b rin g th is a p p e a l. W e al s o concl ude thatJ oy ce maynotchal l enge the A pr i l 4, 2008, or dert hr ough th is a p p e a l b e c a u s e h e n e v e r f ile d a c la im a s s e rt in g a n in te re s t in th e f o rf e ite d p ro p e rt y . U n d e r 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 3 (n ), a th ird p a rtym a yp e tit io n th e c o u rt f o r a h e a rin g to a d

ju d ica te t he val i di t yof hi s al l eged i nt er es ti n t he pr oper t y . Sect i on 853( n) pr ovi des t he exc l us i ve m eans byw hich a t hir d p artycan asserthis i nter est . D S I A ssoc. L L C v. U nit ed S t at es, 4 9 6 F .3 d 1 7 5 , 1 8 3 -8 4 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). A lth o u g h Jo y c e c o n ten d s th a t h e d id a ss e rt a c laim t o t he pr oper t ybyfi l i ng hi s m ot i on forr el i ef f r om t he M ay3, 2007, or der , t hatm ot i on w as d en ied w ith o u t prejud ice so that Jo y ce co u ld p rop erlyfil e a thir d -pa rtyclaim u n d er § 853( n) . T o t he ext entJ oy ce c ont ends t hathe di d notr ece i ve pr opernot i ce of t he amended for fei tur e or der , t hatcont ent i on i s bel i ed byhi s fi l i ng of the mot i on forr el i ef fro m the o rde r an d the n o ti ce that the G o v ern m en t sub m itted in su p p o rto f it s m o ti o n fo r a f in a l f o rf e itu re o rd e r. Jo y c e a lso a p p e a rs to f a u lt th e D istric t C o u rt f o r f a ili n g to h o ld an cil laryp roc ee d ing s. A b sen t th e f il ing o f a thir d -pa rtyclaim to the p rop erty , h o w ev er, th e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d n o re a s o n to h o ld a h e a ri n g . A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l dism iss R asp ino ’s ap p ea l and af firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’so rde r. F o r th e re aso n s w e h av e se t fo rth , the G o v ern m en t’ s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary

a f f ir m a n c e is g ra n te d in p a rt a n d d e n ie d in p a rt .