## 2006 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
6-6-2006 

# U SA v . Kni ght 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 . 05-3686

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

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 2006 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 . vi l l a no va . e du
. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Kni gh t " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 950. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/9501 

## Effective May 31, 2006, Judge Roth assumed senior status. NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-3686

___________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CARL ANTHONY KNIGHT,

Appellant

________________________ Appeal From the United States District Court For the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 98-cr-00003-2E) District Judge: Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.

___________________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May 24, 2006 Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and ROTH 1 

## , Circuit Judges
. (Filed: June 6, 2006)

______________ OPINION OF THE COURT

______________ PER CURIAM Carl Anthony Knight appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion for return of property as well as the order denying his motion for reconsideration. The

## 2 procedural history of this case and the details of Knight’s claims are well-known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s opinion, and need not be discussed at length. In August 1999, Knight was sentenced to life imprisonment after his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. In January 2004, Knight filed a motion for return of property pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g). The District Court denied the motion and the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Knight filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Knight argues that he was entitled to notice of the administrative forfeiture of over thirty-eight thousand dollars seized during the investigation which led to his conviction. He states that the government contended at trial that the money was his. He asserts that a government witness, Victor Calderone-Rodriguez, testified that Knight gave him themoney to buy cocaine. However, Knight testified at trial that he never gave CalderoneRodriguez any money for cocaine. Supp. App. at 61. Even if Knight was entitled to notice, the error was harmless. Because the money was used to purchase cocaine, Knight could not have a property interest in the money. Moneys furnished in exchange for a controlled substance are “subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them.” 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). We agree with the District Court that Knight has not shown that he was entitled to notice of the forfeiture. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will affirm the District Court’s orders.