2004 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 4-28-2004 

# U S A v . H off ne r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-3791

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 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 no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . H off ne r " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 767. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/767NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

____________ No. 02-3791

____________ UNIT ED STA TES OFAMERI CA,

v. TH OM AS F. H OF FN ER , JR ., Appellant

____________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FO R T HE EA STE RN DIST RIC T O F PE NN SY LV AN IA

(Dist. Court No. 00-cr -00456-2) District Cou rt Judge: H on. Ha rvey Bartle, III Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

March 29, 2004 Be for e: A LIT O, A LD ISE RT and BE CK ER , Circuit Judges (Opinion Fi led: Apri l 28, 2004)

______________________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

______________________

### -2-

PER CURIAM: In this appeal, Th omas H offner, Jr., contests a fina l order of crim inal forfeiture entere d by the District Court pursuant to the parti es’ stipulat

ion. Hoffner

also chal lenges the deni al of a moti on for the return of pr opertyunder FederalRule of Criminal Procedure 41( e). Hoffner ’s appoi nted counselhas moved to withdr aw and has fil ed a brief pur suant t o An ders v . Califo rnia , 386 U.S. 738 ( 1967), and Hoffner has fil ed an info rma l pro se b rief . Hoffner was convict ed of drug-r elat ed offenses, and in a separate not precedential opinion, we have affirmed hi s conviction and sentence. This appeal conce rns the forfeiture of $ 10,960 in currency and a 1992 H arley Davidson motorcycle. On Februa ry 6, 2002, Hoffner , his then-at torney , Crai g R. Mitnick, and the government entered into a sti pulati on pursuant

to which Hoffner agr eed not t o contest the forfe iture of the $10, 960 and the motor cycl e, and the government, in ret urn, agreed not t o seek the f orfeit ure of $6,000 in c urrencythat ha d been seiz ed from Hoffner’s s afe deposi t box. App. 18. The sti pulati on specifi call y pr ovided that the $6, 000 would be returned to Hoffner through Craig R. Mitni ck. Nowhere in the agreement di d the government agree t o return the mon ey personally to Hoff ner. The crux of Hoffner’s argument on appealis that Mitni ck did not f orward the $6,000 to hi m. Based on thi s all eged fact, Hoffner argues t hat he di d not knowingly enter into the s tipu latio n be cau se h e w as n ot g iven not ice th at M itnic k w oul d ke ep th e $6 ,000 .

### -3-

He also conte nds that

this resul ted in a

violat ion of his right

to due proce ss and his right to the e ffecti ve assi stance of counsel. He assert s that “he paid Mr. Mitni ck his ful l fees upfront for representing him in these cri minal proceedings (a total of $50,000.00). Thus, ther e w as n o leg al fe es p end ing .” In for ma l Br ief a t 3(A ). Assuming for the sake of argument that Hoffner

is cor rect i n assert

ing that Mitnick did not forward the $6,000 to him, we nevert heless see no non-frivolous ground for atta cking the judgment of forfeiture or the denialof the Rule 41( e) motion, which sought a return by the government of t he $6,000 t o the defendant . The stipulat ion provi ded for the funds i n questi on to be ret urned to Hoffner t

hrough his attorney. No evidence has been call ed to our at

tenti on showing eit

her that the government

knew that Mr. Mitni ck wou ld not forw ard the fun ds to his client or that H offner d id not und erstand the pro cedure that would be followed. Accordingly , we see no ground for arguing t

hat the defendant did not enter int o the stipulat ion knowingly

and inte lli gently

or that his ri ghts t o due proc ess an d the e ffec tive ass istance of co unse l wer e viola ted. It ap pears that H offn er is atte mpting t o convert a

contrac t dis pute with hi s att orney into a ground for upsetting t he jud gm ent o f fo rfei ture . W e se e no bas is fo r do ing so. After revi ewing the And ers brief s ubmitt ed by Hoffner’ s curre nt appointed counse l, the governm ent’s brief, and H offner’s inf ormal brief, w e are conv inced that there are no non-frivolous arguments t hat can be made i n this appeal. We will therefore grant cou nse l’s m otio n to wit hdr aw and wil l aff irm t he o rde r ofthe d istrict cou rt.