[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-11833

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20468-JAL-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee.

 versus

MICHAEL GARRETT CHAVOUS,

 Defendant,

ELAINE CHAVOUS, 

 Interested Party-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 7, 2016)

Case: 15-11833 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

In November 2012, Michael Chavous was sentenced on a plea of guilty to 

conspiracy to traffick cocaine. His sentence contained a provision forfeiting to the 

United States $65,000 in U.S. currency.1

 In United States v. Chavous, 522 

Fed.Appx. 799 (11th Cir. 2013), we affirmed his conviction and his sentence, 

which the exception of the forfeiture provision which he did not challenge. In 

January 2014, Chavous petitioned the District Court for an order setting aside the 

forfeiture. The court denied the motion, and on appeal, we affirmed, treating 

Chavous’ motion as a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion for the 

return of seized property. United States v. Chavous, 589 Fed.Appx. 468, 469 (11th 

Cir. 2014). 

In January 2015, Chavous’ wife, Elaine Chavous, alleging ownership of the 

forfeited $65,000, petitioned the District Court pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) to 

hold a hearing so that her right to the money could be determined. The court 

referred the petition to a Magistrate Judge, who recommended that it be denied as 

untimely. The District Court, adopting the recommendation, denied the requested 

hearing and thus the petition. This appeal followed.

 1

 A co-defendant, sentenced earlier, also forfeited to the United States the same $65,000. 

Case: 15-11833 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 2 of 5 
3

On appeal, Mrs. Chavous, appearing pro se, argues that: (1) the government 

failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to acquire a forfeiture order; (2) the 

forfeiture violated both her and Mr. Chavous’s due process rights; (3) Mr. 

Chavous’s trial and appellate counsel were ineffective; and (4) the district court 

should have considered her objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”). After review of the record and consideration of the 

parties’ briefs, we affirm the District Court’s decision. 

We review a district court’s legal conclusions regarding third-party claims to 

criminally forfeited property de novo and its factual findings for clear error. 

United States v. Marion, 562 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Criminal forfeiture proceedings are governed by 21 U.S.C. § 853 and Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 32.2. See 21 U.S.C. § 853; Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2. Any person 

convicted of certain felony drug offenses must forfeit any property derived from 

the violation. 21 U.S.C. § 853(a). If the court finds that property is subject to 

forfeiture, it must promptly enter a preliminary order of forfeiture without regard to 

any third party’s interest in the property. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2). Following 

the entry of an order of forfeiture, including a preliminary order, the government 

must publish notice of its intent to dispose of the property and provide direct 

written notice to any person known to have an alleged interest in the property to 

the extent practicable. Marion, 562 F.3d at 1339; 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(1); Fed. R. 

Case: 15-11833 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 3 of 5 
4

Crim. P. 32.2(b)(6). The preliminary order becomes final as to the defendant at 

sentencing. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4). A third party has 30 days after the final 

publication of notice to petition the court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of 

her interest in the property. 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2). If a third party fails to file a 

petition before the deadline, she forfeits her interest in the property. Marion, 562 

F.3d at 1337. Following the court’s disposition of all petitions, or if no petitions 

are timely filed, the United States receives clear title to the property. 21 U.S.C. 

§ 853(n)(7).

If a third party files a petition asserting an interest in the property as 

prescribed by statute, the court must conduct an ancillary proceeding. Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 32.2(c)(1). If no third party files a timely petition, the preliminary order 

becomes the final order of forfeiture if the court finds that the defendant, or any 

combination of defendants convicted in the case, had an interest in the property 

that is forfeitable. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)(2). Neither the defendant nor a third 

party may object to the final order on the ground that the third party had an interest 

in the property. Id.

An ancillary proceeding constitutes the sole means by which a third party 

can establish entitlement to the forfeited property. United States v. Davenport, 668 

F.3d 1316, 1320 (11th Cir. 2010). Third parties are barred from intervening in a 

trial or appeal of a criminal case involving the forfeiture of property, and are 

Case: 15-11833 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 4 of 5 
5

instead limited to participating in the ancillary proceeding. Id.; 21 U.S.C. § 853(k). 

Third parties cannot relitigate the merits of the forfeitability of property, but can 

only use the ancillary proceeding to determine if they have a legal interest in the 

forfeited property. Davenport, 668 F.3d at 1321. The sole mechanism for 

vindicating a third party’s purported interest in forfeited property is the ancillary 

proceeding. Id. They lack standing to challenge the validity of the order of 

forfeiture itself. Id.

The District Court properly determined that Mrs. Chavous’s third-party 

petition in response to the criminal forfeiture was untimely because it was filed 

over two years after the mandatory deadline. The government’s publication of 

forfeiture provided sufficient notice under the circumstances because it had no 

reason to believe that she had an interest in the property. Finally, Mrs. Chavous 

lacks standing to raise her remaining arguments that the government failed to meet 

its burden of proof in Mr. Chavous’s criminal trial and that Mr. Chavous’s trial and 

appellate counsel were ineffective because these two arguments challenge the 

validity of the preliminary order of forfeiture in the underlying criminal trial, 

which only Mr. Chavous has standing to challenge.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-11833 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 5 of 5