2007 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 11-7-2007 

# U SA v . N eidi g 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 . 06-1618

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

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 sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 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 sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . N eid i g " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 252. h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/252NOT 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. 06- 1618

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. W I LL I AM J . NEI DI G; CHARLE S NEI DI G, J R.

C h a rl e s N e id ig , J r., A p p e llan t.

__________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( M . D . Pa. C r i m . N o. 04- cr - 00271) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n . Jam es F . M cC lure, Jr.

___________________________ Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 5, 2007
B efor e: B A R R Y , C H A G A R E S, and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed N ovember 7, 2007)

O P I N I O NF o r th e sa k e o f c lar ity , w e w ill re f

e r to th e a p p e llan t C h a rle s N e id ig a s “ N e id ig ” a n d to 1 h is s o n a s “ W illia m .” P ER CURI AM C har l es N ei di g, J r . , appea l s pr o s e fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on
s e e k i n g t h e r e tu r n o f

p r o p e r t yf

o r f e i t e d t o t h e g o v e r n me n t . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w, we
w i l l vacate t he o rderand rem and for furt her proceedings. I. N ei di g has been a fe der al i nm at e s i nce 2002. I n 2004, hi s s on, W i l l i am J. N ei di g, w as i ndi ct ed forcons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e cont r ol l ed subs t ance s i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C
. § 846. 1 L at ert haty ear , W i l l i am pl eade d gui l t yand agr eed t o for fei ta hous e and r eal pr oper t yl ocat ed i n N or t hum ber l and C ount y , Penns y l vani a, t he dee d t o w hi ch i s i n hi s name. T he governm ent t hen i ns t i tut ed cr i m i nal for fei tur e p r ocee di ngs under21 U
. S. C
. § 853. Pur s uantt o t hat
s t atut e, t he D i s t r i ctC our t ent er ed a pr el i m i nar yor derof for fei tur e di r ect i ng t he governm ent t o pr ovi de publ i c not i ce. T he gover nm ent di d s o by publ i cat i on i n w hat i tchar act er i zes as
a new s paper of gener al ci r cul at i on i n N or t hum ber l and C ount y . U nder t he s t atut e and not i ce,
a n y c l a i ms t o t h e p r o p e r t ywe r e t o b e f i l e d wi t h t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r tb yM a y1 3 , 2 0 0 5 . On D ece m ber19, 2005, havi ng r ece i ved no s uch cl ai m s , t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed a fi nal or der of for fei tur e. O n J anuary31, 2006, N ei di g fi l ed w hat he capt i oned as a “M ot i on fort he R etur n of Sei zed Pr oper t y ” cl ai m i ng an i nt er es t i n t he prope r t y . A ccor di ng t o N ei di g, he had c onvey ed 2T he governm ent a r gues t hatW i l l i am’s aff i davi tcont r adi ct s r epr es ent at i ons i n hi s pl ea 2 agr eement , butt hos e r epr es ent at i ons ar e not concl us i ve as agai ns tN ei di g i n t hi s pr ocee di ng. S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . N a v a , 4 0 4 F .3 d 1 1 1 9 , 1 1 3 3 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. 3 th e p ro p e rtyto W ill iam in 2 0 0 1 p u rsu a n t to a n o ra l a g re e m e n t u n d e r w h ich W ill iam w o u ld ( 1) pay$1. 00 i n cons i der at i on, ( 2) r entoutt he pr oper t yw hi l e N eidi g w as i n pr i s on and depos i tt he pr ocee ds i nt o N ei di g’ s ac co u n t, the n ( 3) r econve yt he pr oper t yt o N ei di g upon N ei di g’ s r el eas e fr om pr i s on. N ei di g fur t her all eged thatW i l l i am neverpai d t he
cons i der at i on and br eac hed t he agr eementbym ovi ng i nt o t he pr opertyhi m s el f i ns t ead of
r ent i ng i tout . N ei di g s uppl i ed a n o t ar i zed a ffi davi tfr om W i l l i am affi r m i ng t he for egoi ng ci rcum st ances. T he D i st ri ctC ou rtden i ed the m oti on , and N ei dig appe al s. 2 3 II. Inf o rm ing the f

o ll o w ing d iscu ssion are N eidig ’s statu s as a p ri so n er p roc ee d ing p ro
s e and t he “hoa r ym axi m t hat‘ t he l aw abhor s a for fei tur e. ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. L avi n, 942 F. 2d 1 7 7 , 1 8 2 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 1 ) (cit ati o n o m it ted). O u r first task is t o asc ertain the n ature o f N eidig ’s
m ot i on. G ener al l y , a t hi r d par t y w i s hi ng t o cl ai m an i nt er es ti n pr oper t ys ubj ectt o cr i m i nal f o rf e itu re p r o c e e d in g s m u st f ile a tim e lyp e tit io n u n d e r 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 3 (n ). A n u n tim e ly pet i t i on fi l ed aft er a fi nal or derof for fei tur e has been e nt er ed s houl d be t r eat ed as a mot i on
s eeki ng r el i ef f

r om t he j udgm entunder R ul e 60(b) of t he F eder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, t he deni al o f w h ich w e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. R odr i guezA g u irre, 41 4 F . 3 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 2 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ); U n it ed S tat es v . P u ig, 41 9 F . 3 d 7 0 0 , 7 0 2 (8 th 3N e id ig a rg u e s, f o r e x a m p le, th a t h e d id n o t r e c e iv e n o tice o f th e f o rf e itu re b e c a u se h is 4 pr i s on does nots ubs cr i be t o t he new s paperi n w hi ch not i ce w as publ i s hed and thathe d ili g e n tlytried to p ro tec t h is in ter e sts b y a tt e m p tin g to f ile a lien a g a in st th e p ro p e rtyw e ll befor e t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed i t s fi nal or derof for fei tur e. T h e d o ck et in co rrectl y iden ti fies the g o v ern m en t’ s resp o n se as a resp o n se to W il li am ’s 5 m ot i on, butt he docke t ed r es pons e w as t o N ei di g’ s m ot i on. C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ); E stev ez , 8 4 5 F . 2 d at 14 1 1
. T h e D is tr ict C o u rtd ec li n ed to en tert ain N eidig ’s cl ai m beca us e i tbel i eved thathe had nots how n excus abl e negl ectand thatt he cl ai m l acks
m er i t . W e do notbel i eve thatt he D i s t r i ct C our t s houl d have m ade ei t her det er m i nat i on on th e re c o rd b e f

o re it. Fi rst , it is t rue t hatN ei di g’ s m ot i on di d nots etfor t h anybas i s fora fi ndi ng of
excus abl e negl ect , as t he gover nm ent ar gued i n i t s r es pons e. O n appea l , how ever , he r ai s es
s ever al ar gum ent s t hat m i ght conce i vabl y demonst r at e excus abl e negl ect , and has pr ovi ded
som e do cum entarysupp ort . N ei dig furt her ar gu es t hat he w as prepari ng t o repl yon t hese 4 i s s ues and t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tact ed t oo has t i l yi n deny i ng hi s m ot i on befor e he c oul d do
so. W e agree. T he g ov ernm ent fi l ed i t s res po nse on February3, 20 06
. U nd er the local rul es, N eidig w as p erm itted to fil e a rep ly b ri ef w ith in ten b u sine ss d ay s the rea fter, and a F eb rua ry 17 due- dat e fors uch a r epl yi s r efl ect ed on t he D i s t r i ct C our t docket
. See M
. D . Pa. R . 7. 7, 7. 32; M . D . Pa. C r i m . N o. 04- cr - 00271 D ocket N o. 487. T he D i s t r i ct C our t , how ever , deni ed 5 N e id ig ’s m o tio n o n F e b ru a ry7 . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill re m a n d f o r th e D istric t C o u rt to
cons i derN ei di g’ s ar gum ent s i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance . See U ni t ed St at es v. M os quer a, 845 F. 2d 11 22 , 11 25 -26 (1stC i r. 19 88 ) ( ho l ding t hat di st ri ctcou rtshou l d n ot have d i sm i ssed pro se 4p riso n e r’s m o tio n f o r re tu rn o f

f o rf e ited p r o p e rtyb e f

o re h e h a d a “ re a so n a b le c h a n c e ” to
r epl yt o gover nm ent ’ s r es pons e w her e i ssues of ade quat e not i ce r equi r ed “f ur t her d e v e lo p m e n t” ). Second, w e do notagr ee thatN ei di g’ s cl ai m concl us i vel yl acks m er i ton i t s fac e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded t hatN ei di g vol unt ar i l yt r ans ferr ed t he pr oper t yt o hi s s on and t hus “l acks s t andi ng t o as s er tt he i nnocentow nerdefe ns e. ” ( Feb
. 7 , 2 0 0 6 O r derat3. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r efe r ence t o t he “i nnocentow nerdefe ns e” a ppear s t o be a r efe ren ce t o a defe ns e ava i l abl e undert he ci vi l for fei tur e s t atut e, a n d th e g o ver nm entexpr es s l yi nvokes t hat
s t atut e on appea l
. See 18 U . S. C
. § 983( d)
. T hi s cas e, how ever , i s gover ned byt he cr i m i nal for fei tur e s t atut e. See 21 U . S. C
. § 853. U nder t he cr i m i nal s t atut e, N ei di g can pr evai l i f he demonst r ates that, at th e t i m e of the cr i m es t hatgave r i s e t o t he for fei tur e, he had a “l egal
r i ght , t i t l e, ori nt er es ti n t he pr oper t y ” s uper i or t o t hat of hi s s on. I d. § 853( n) ( 6) ( A ) ; L avi n, 942 F. 2d at185. T he exi s t ence and natur e of a cl ai m ant ’ s i nt er es ti s gover ned bys t at e l aw ( her e, Penns y l vani a) and t he ef fec tof t hat i nt er es t i s gover ned by fede r al l aw . See N ava, 404 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 7 ; U n ite d S ta te s v . S ta z o la , 8 9 3 F .2 d 3 4 , 3 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). U ndert h e ci r cumst ance s N ei di g al l eges , hi s vol unt ar yconvey ance t o W i l l i am, by i t s el f, m i ghtnotpr ecl u d e h im fr om demonst r at i ng a “r i ght , t i t l e ori nt er es t ” under Penns y l vani a l aw s uffi ci ent for r el i ef under § 853( n)
. See, e. g. , N ava, 404 F. 3d at1129- 31 ( appl y i ng M ont ana l aw ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. B en- H ur , 20 F. 3d 313, 317- 19 ( 7t h C i r . 1994) (ap p ly ing W isco n sin law ). O n the reco rd b ef o re u s, w e c an n o t determ ine w h ethe r N eidig ’s 5The go ve r nmen tr e l i e s on U ni t e d St a t e s v. BC CI H ol di ng s ( Luxe mbour g) , S. A
. , 69 F. 6 Supp. 2d 36, 61 ( D . D . C
. 1999) , fort he pr opos i t i on t hata vol unt ar yconvey ance r ender s one a n u n se c u re d c re d ito r w ith o u t sta n d in g to c o n tes t a f o rf e itu re . T h a t ca se , h o w e v e r, in a d d iti o n to b e in g o th e rw ise f a c tu a llyd istin c t, did n o t ad d re ss th e e f f e c t o f a re a l p ro p e rty convey ance underPenns y l vani a l aw or§ 853( n)
. W e e x p res s no opi ni on on w het herany par t i cul art heor yi s avai l abl e t o N ei di g underPenns y l van ia l aw , butw e not e t hat P enn sy l van i a recogn i zes cert ai n theori es t hat are p otent i al l yi m pli cat ed b yhis al l egati on s. See, e. g. , B r ent w at erH om es , I nc. v. W ei bl ey , 369 A
. 2d 1172, 1 1 7 5 (P a. 1 977) ; Si l verv. Si l ver , 219 A
. 2d 659, 661- 62 ( Pa. 1966) ; G odzi eba v. G odzi eba, 143 A
. 2d 3 4 4 , 3 4 7 ( Pa. 1 9 5 8 ). G iv e n th e tec h n ica l n a tu re o f sta te p ro p e rtylaw , the D istric t C o u r t m a y w a n t to cons i derappoi nt i ng couns el forN ei di g b ef o r e anyrul i ng on t he mer i t s of hi s cl ai m . See T a b ro n v . G ra c e , 6 F .3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 5 -5 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). cl ai m has m e r i t ; we s a y o n l y t h a t h i s v o l u n t a r y c o n v e y a n c e o f l e g a l t i t l e mi g h t n o tbe d isp o sitiv e . If

th e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t N e id ig h a s d e m o n stra ted e x c u sa b le n e g lec t, 6 i ts houl d addr es s N ei di g’ s ar gum ent s r egar di ng W i l l i am’s al l eged br eac h of agr eementand W i l l i am’s al l eged pr o m ise t o r econve yt he pr oper t yt o N ei di g, as w el l as anyot her app ropri at e i ssues.

6