2009 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 12-4-2009 

# U SA v . M ari a N ol a sco 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 . 08-4872

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova 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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . M ari a N o l as c o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 147. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/147NOT 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- 4664 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M ARI A CAROLI NA N OLAS CO F AR S WI S S AS S E T M ANAGE M E NT L T D. ; HAR BE R C OR P OR AT I ON; M AB ON CO RP OR AT I ON; GAT E X C OR P OR AT I ON; P I E DADE P E DR O AL M E I DA; AVI ON

RE S OUR CE S L T D; F AR E S BA P T I S T A P I NT O; J OS E BA P T I S T A P I NT O NE T O; T I GR US CO RP OR AT I ON; P O M P E U C O S T A L IM A P IN H E IR O M A IA ; I S AB E L CR I S T I NA DUT RA P I NHE I RO M AI A, A p p e llan ts A p p ell an ts pu rsua n t t o F . R . A . P . 1 2 (a).

N o. 08- 4872 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M ARI A CAROLI NA N OLAS CO M ID L A N D F IN A N C IA L , IN C ., A ppel l ant (P u rsua n t t o F ed . R . A p p . P . 1 2 (a)) APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY (D . C . C ri m . N o . 0 4 -cr-00 6 1 7 -00 1 )-2- D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os eph A . G r eena w ay Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember18, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , B A R R Y and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber4, 2009)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge T hi s appea l i s t aken f

r om a N ovember12, 2008 or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tdeny i ng appel l ant s ’ appl i cat i on foratt orney s ’ fee s pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2465( b) ( “Sect i on 2 4 6 5 ( b ) ” ) . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e p a rties ’ b e n e f

it, w e se t f

o rth o n lyth o se f

a c ts necessaryt o o ur anal y si s. I n J une 2002, the G overnm ents ei zed mor e than thr ee doz en bank a ccount s at M er chant s B ank ( now V al l eyN at i onal B ank) cont ai ni ng m or e than $21 mi l l i on. T he funds w er e s ei zed i n connec t i on w i th the arr es tof M ar i a C ar ol i na N ol as co, a bank empl oy ee, on t ax eva s i on and otherchar ges . T w o y ear s l at er , N ol as co pl ed gui l tyt o one countof oper at i ng a moneytr ans m i t t i ng bus i nes s w i thouta l i cens e, i n vi ol at i on of 18T w o of the tw enty - fourpet i t i ons w er e di s m i s s ed. 1 T he funds beca m e the s ubj ectof a t or tur ous pr ocedur al l abyr i nth i nvol vi ng the 2 M anhatt an D i s tr i ctA t t orney ’ s O ffi ce, N ew Y or k s t at e court s , the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a, B r azi l i an court s , and a M utual L egal A s s i s t ance T r eaty . T hos e pr ocee di ngs , how ever , ar e notgerm ane t o thi s appea l . Suffi ce i tt o s ay tha tthe fu nd s ha ve e i the rbe e n f or fe i t e d b ya pp e l l a nt s ora r e i n the c us t od yof the U . S. D e p a rt m e n t o f

J u s tic e . -3- U .S .C . § 1 9 6 0 , a n d f

o u r c o u n ts o f

f ilin g f a ls e ta x re tu rn s , in v io la tio n o f 2 6 U .S .C . § 7201. In D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 4 , the G o v e rn m e n t co m m e n c e d c rim in a l i n p e rs o n a m fo rfe itu re pr ocee di ngs agai ns tN ol as co pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 982( a) and Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal P r o c e d u r e 3 2 . 2 , a n d th e D i s tr i c tC o u r tf i l e d a p r e l i m i n a ry o r d e ro f f o r f e i tu r e . T w e n tyfourcl ai m ant s , i ncl udi ng appel l ant s , then fi l ed pet i t i ons under21 U . S. C . § 853( n) (“Sect i on 85 3(n)”) assert i ng t i t l e superi or t o N olas co in the fu nd s. 1 I n J une 2006, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the Sect i on 853( n) cl ai m ant s ’ m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm entand amended the pr el i m i naryor derof for fei tur e. I n s o doi ng, the C our tfound appe l l ant s ’ i nt er es t s s uper i ort o N ol as co’ s beca us e the G overnm entoffe r ed no evi dence thatN ol as co hel d anyr i ght , t i t l e, ori nt er es ti n the pr operty . A ccor di ng t o t he C our t , “the G overnm ent[s ought ] t o tr ans form thi s cr i m i nal for fei tur e pr ocee di ng i nt o a too l fo r i n v esti g ati o n o f B raz il ian c ri m e a n d interna ti o n al fina n cial w ron g d o ing . W ere thi s C our tt o compl y , i tw oul d farexce ed the bounds of the r ol e as s i gned t o i tbythe c ri m in a l f

o rf e itu re s ta tu te s .” (A 7 0 .) 2-4-

B ased on the o rdergrant i ng sum m aryj ud gm ent, app el l ants soug ht att orney s’ fees, cos t s , and i nt er es tunderSect i on 2465( b) as cl ai m ant s w ho “s ubs t ant i al l ypr evai l [ed] ” i n a “ci vi l pr ocee di ng t o for fei tpr operty . ” I n the al t ernat i ve, appel l ant s s oughtan aw ar d of in ter e st f ro m th e U n ited S tate s. T h e D istric t C o u rt re jec ted th o se re q u e sts . W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the fi nal or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tpur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . II. A. O u r re v iew o f

leg a l q u e stio n s, in c lu d in g q u e stio n s o f sta tu to ryin terp re tatio n , is p le n a ry. U

ni t ed Stat es v. D ees , 4 6 7 F .3 d 8 4 7 , 8 5 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 2 (2 0 0 7 ). W h e n in te rp re tin g a s ta tu te , “ w e n e e d to ‘d is c e rn le g is la tiv e in te n t,’ cons i der i ng fi r s tthe pl ai n m eani ng of the s t atut oryt ext . . . . T he pl ai n m eani ng of the t ext sh o u ld b e c o n c lu siv e , ex c e p t in th e ra re in sta n c e w h e n th e c o u rt d e ter m in e s th a t th e p lain m eani ng i s ambi guous . ” Law r ence v. C i t y of P hi la. , 5 2 7 F .3 d 2 9 9 , 3 1 6 -1 7 (3 d C ir .) (i n te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 7 6 3 (20 0 8 ). B. In anal y zi ng w hetherapp el l ants are ent i t l ed to at t orney s’ fees, cost s, and i nter est u n d e r S e c tio n 2 4 6 5 (b ), w e w ill f irst p lac e th e u n d e rly in g S e c tio n 8 5 3 (n ) p ro c e e d in g s in cont ext . W e w i l l then addr es s the el ement s of a c l ai m underSect i on 2465( b) and ana l y ze thos e el ement s i n t he cont extof an unde r l y i ng Sect i on 853( n) pr ocee di ng.-5- i. W hen an i n p e rs o n a m c rim in a l f o rf e itu re p ro se c u tio n is in iti a ted , a th ird p a rtyis barr ed fr om i nt erveni ng i n the cr i m i nal cas e and f r om comm enci ng an ac t i on agai ns tt he U n ite d S ta te s c o n c e rn in g th e v a lid ity o f a n a lle g e d p ro p e rt yin te re s t. 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 3 (k ). A th ir d p a rt y ’s p ro p e rt yin te re s t, h o w e v e r, m a yb e v in d ic a te d b ym e a n s o f S e c tio n 8 5 3 (n ). T her efor e, fol l ow i ng a fi ndi ng of for fei t abi l i tyand the entryof a pr el i m i naryor derof fo rfe itu re, a th ir d p artym ayasse rtan interest i n fo rfe it ed p rop ertyb yp eti ti o n ing the c o u rt foran anc i l l arypr ocee di ng i n w hi ch t o adj udi cat e the val i di tyof thatpr opertyi nt er es t . 21 U . S. C . § 853( n) ( 2) . T hatpr ocee di ng “i s the onl yavenue byw hi ch a thi r d- partycl ai m ant m ays eek t o as s ertan i nt er es ti n pr opertythathas been i ncl uded i n an i ndi ctm ent . ” U ni t ed S ta tes v . P u ig , 4 1 9 F . 3 d 7 0 0 , 7 0 3 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T o pr evai l ata Sect i on 853( n) anci l l arypr ocee di ng, a cl ai m antm us tdemonstr at e a ves t ed l egal r i ght , t i t l e, ori nt er es ti n the pr opertys uper i ort o the def endant ’ s orthatthe cl ai m anti s a bona f

i de p u rc h a s e r f

o r v a lu e o f

th e p ro p e rt yin te re s t. 2 1 U .S .C . § 853( n) ( 6) ( A ) - ( B ) . I n s hor t , w her e “a thi r d party ’ s i nt er es ti n the for fei t ed pr operty , att he t i m e of the cri m i nal act s, [i s] superi or t o the cr i m i nal defend ant’ s i nter est , then the int eres t thatthe governm entacqui r es w hen i ts t eps i nt o the def endant ’ s s hoes i s s ubor di nat e t o t hat of the thi r d party . ” U

n itedS ta tes v . L a v in , 9 4 2 F . 2 d 1 7 7 , 1 8 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). Shoul d a cl ai m antdemonstr at e a pr opertyi nt er es ts uper i ort o the def endant ’ s , t he courtw i l l amend t he or derof for fei tur e ac cor di ngl y , 21 U . S. C . § 853( n) ( 6) , and, on-6-

di s pos i t i on of al l pet i t i ons fi l ed underSect i on 853( n) , m ayent era fi nal or derof for fei tur e, s ee 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 5 3 (n)(7 ). ii. E nact ed as partof the C i vi l A s s etFor fei tur e R eform A ct( “C A FR A ”) , Sect i on 2 4 6 5 (b ) p ro v id e s th a t a c laim a n t w h o “ su b sta n tiallyp re v a ils” in “ a n yc iv il p ro c e e d in g to for fei tpr opertyunderanypr ovi s i on of Feder al l aw ” mayr ecove rfr om the U ni t ed St at es r eas onabl e att orney s ’ fee s , cos t s , pos t - j udgm enti nt er es t , and, i n s om e i ns t ance s , actual or im p u ted p re-jud g m en t i n terest. 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 4 6 5 (b)(1 )(A )-( C ). T hus , fora thi r d- partySect i on 853( n) cl ai m antt o r ecove ratt orney s ’ fee s , cos t s , and in ter e st u n d e r S e c tio n 2 4 6 5 (b ), th e c laim a n t m u st e sta b lish th a t h e o r sh e : (1 ) su b sta n tially pr evai l ed; ( 2) i n a ci vi l pr ocee di ng; ( 3) t o for fei tpr operty . I f one of thos e el ement s i s not sati sfied , a c lai m an t i s n o t entit led to the b en ef it s o f S ec ti o n 2 4 6 5 (b). a. I n U n itedS ta tes v . L a v in , i n det erm i ni ng the t i m el i nes s of an a ppeal , w e s t at ed “that a pr ocee di ng under21 U . S. C . § 853( n) . . . i s a ‘ ci vi l cas e’ forpurpos es of [Fede r al R ul e of A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re 4 (a )( 1 )] .” 9 4 2 F .2 d a t 1 8 2 . W e r el i ed on the pr i nci pl e thatci vi l cas es a re , b ro a d ly, an ya c tio n s th a t a re n o t c ri m in a l p ro s e c u tio n s . I d. at181 ( ci t i ng 9 J . M oor e, B . W a rd , & J . L u c a s , Moor e’s Feder alP r act i ce p a ra 2 0 4 .0 8 [ 1 ], a t 4 -2 9 (2 d e d . 1 9 9 1 )) . W e furthernot ed thatpr ocee di ngs r el at ed t o cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons , s uch as habea s corpus p e tit io n s a n d a c tio n s d e a lin g w ith b a il b o n d s, a re c iv il i n n a tu re , d e sp ite th e ir re latio n sh ipB uts ee U ni t ed Stat es v. Y

er ar di , 1 9 2 F . 3 d 1 4 , 1 9 (1st C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) (an cil lary 3 p roc ee d ing is cri m inal in n ature fo r pu rpo ses o f a d v erse sp o u sal t esti m o n yp ri v il eg e); U ni t ed Stat es v. G ar di ner , 512 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1272 ( S. D . Fl a. 2007) ( fi ndi ng Sect i on 853( n) pr ocee di ng cr i m i nal and, ther eby , notcover ed bySect i on 2465( b) ’ s fee sh ift ing p rov isi o n ). -7- t o a pr os ecut i on. Sect i on 853( n) anci l l arypr ocee di ngs ar e notpartof the cr i m i nal p ro s e c u tio n . See F e d . R . C ri m . P . 3 2 .2 (c )( 4 ). L a v in is c o n s is te n t w ith th e g re a t w e ig h t o f a u th o ri ty. See U

nited S tates v. P ease , 3 3 1 F . 3 d 8 0 9 , 8 1 6 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (find ing that S ec ti o n 8 5 3 (n) a n cil laryp roc ee d ing s are civil) ; U nited S tates v. G i l bert , 244 F. 3d 888, 906- 08 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( fi ndi ng Sect i on 8 5 3 (n ) c iv il fo r p u rp o se s o f a p p e llate ju risd ictio n ); U n itedS ta tes v . A lca ra z-G a rc ia , 79 F. 3d 769, 772 n. 4 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( fol l ow i ng L a v in ap p roa ch to ti m eli n ess o f a p p ea l) ; U ni t ed Stat es v. D ouglas , 55 F. 3d 584, 585 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( hol di ng thatSect i on 853( n) p ro c e e d in g is c iv il ac tio n u n d e r E q u a l A c c e ss to Ju stic e A c t); s ee al s o D avi d B . Sm i th, P r os ecut i on and D ef

ens e of For f ei t ur e C as es § 14. 08[2] [c] , at14- 117 ( 2009 ed. ) ( “[T] he an cil laryh ea ri n g p roc ed u re is civil in n ature . ”). 3 T her efor e, beca us e a Sec t i on 853( n) pr ocee di ng i s s epar at e and di s t i nctfr om the pr os ecut i on i t s el f, Sect i on 853( n) anci l l arypr ocee di ngs ar e “c i vi l ” pr ocee di ngs for p u rpo ses o f S ec ti o n 2 4 6 5 (b).-8- b. T he G overnm entcont ends thatSect i on 853( n) anci l l arypr ocee di ngs ar e not p r o c e e d i n g s “ t o f

o r f e i tp r o p e r ty, ” b u tr a th e ra r e p r o c e e d i n g s t o q u i e tt i t l e a n d , a c c o r d i n g l y, ar e nots ubj ectt o Sect i on 2465( b) . W e agr ee. O thercourt s have a nal ogi zed Sec t i on 853( n) pr ocee di ngs t o “qui ett i t l e” pr ocee di ngs . Forexampl e, i n deci di ng thata Sect i on 853( n) thi r d- partycl ai m antdi d not have a r i ghtt o a j urytr i al , the Four th C i r cui tconcl uded thatSect i on 853( n) pr ocee di ngs ar e “mostanal ogous t o an equi t abl e pet i t i on t o qui ett i t l e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. McH

an , 345 F. 3d 262, 275 ( 4th C i r . 2003) . A ccor di ng t o the court , “[l ] i ke a § 853( n) pr ocee di ng, t he purpos e of a qui ett i t l e ac t i on i s ‘ t o det erm i ne w hi ch named partyhas s uper i orcl ai m t o a cert ai n pi ece of pr operty . ’ ” Id . ( quot i ng C ador et t e v. U ni t ed Stat es , 98 8 F . 2d 21 5, 22 3 (1st C i r. 19 93 )) . A l tho ug h the cou rtackn ow l edg ed d i fferences betw een the proceed i ng s, b e c a u s e “ th e r e l i e f

o f f e r e d t o a c o mp l a i n a n ti n a q u i e tt i t l e a c t i o n i s s u b s t a n t i a l l yth e s a me r el i ef of fer ed t o a § 853( n) pet i t i oner , ” i tconcl uded thatthe cl ai m antw as notent i t l ed t o a ju ry tria l. I

d. ; cf G i l bert , 2 4 4 F .3 d a t 9 1 1 & n .4 7 (o b se rv in g th a t an c ill a ryh e a rin g to l i t i gat e thi r d party ’ s pr opertyr i ght s underanal ogous R I C O s t atut e “i s es s ent i al l ya qui et tit le p ro c e e d in g ” ). S tate d so m e w h a t d if f e re n tly , a S e c tio n 8 5 3 (n ) p ro c e e d in g c a n n o t re su lt in th e f o rf e itu re o f a c laim a n t’s p ro p e rty . R a th e r, th e S e c tio n 8 5 3 (n ) p ro c e e d in g m e re ly ens ur es thatpr opertybel ongi ng t o a thi r d- partycl ai m anti s noti nadvert ent l yfor fei t ed as p a r to f a c r i m i n a l d e f

e n d a n t ’ s p r o p e r ty.-9-

O w n e rs h ip is th e o n ly re le v a n t is s u e in a S e c tio n 8 5 3 (n ) a n c illa ry p ro c e e d in g . See, e. g. U ni t ed Stat es v. Sor ei de , 4 6 1 F .3 d 1 3 5 1 , 1 3 5 4 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (“ U n lik e th e c iv il for fei tur e s t atut es , the cr i m i nal for fei tur e s t atut es cont ai n no pr ovi s i on foran ‘ i nnocent ow ner ’ defe ns e forthi r d part i es . ”) . For fei t abi l i tyhas al r eadybeen pr oven, and pr oof of o w n e rs h ip in a S e c tio n 8 5 3 (n ) p ro c e e d in g is a c o m p le te d e f e n s e . U ni t ed Stat es v. An dr e ws , 5 3 0 F .3 d 1 2 3 2 , 1 2 3 6 -3 7 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (“ [ A ] th ird p a rtyh a s n o rig h t to chal l enge the pr el i m i naryor der ’ s fi ndi ng of for fei t abi l i ty ; r atherthe thi r d partyi s gi ven an o p p o rtu n ityd u rin g th e a n c ill a ryp ro c e e d in g to a ss e rt a n yo w n e rsh ip in ter e st th a t w o u ld r equi r e amendm entof the or der . ”) . T hatdi ffe r ence demonstr at es thatSect i on 853( n) anci l l arypr ocee di ngs excl ude pr opertyfr om for fei tur e and do not“for fei tpr operty ” as req u ir ed b yS ec ti o n 2 4 6 5 (b). A p p e llan ts c o n ten d th a t v iew in g S e c tio n 8 5 3 (n ) a n c ill a ryp ro c e e d in g s a s q u iet title pr ocee di ngs i s t oo narr ow . T hatar gum entm i s s es the mar k. I f a Sec t i on 853( n) pr ocee di ng i s vi ew ed br oadl yas a pr ocee di ng “t o for fei tpr operty , ” then i ts houl d be v iew ed in co n text, i. e. i t sho u ld b e v iew ed as p art an d p arc el of the larg er cr i m i nal fo rfe itu re p roc ee d ing . Ind ee d , b ef o re n o ti n g that the F ed era l R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re w oul d appl yi n m anyr es pect s t o Sect i on 853( n) pr ocee di ngs , the A dvi s oryC om m i t t ee decli ned t o ad op tthe C i vil R ules i n fu l l “[b]ecause an ancil l aryheari ng i s connec t ed to a cr i m i nalcas e. ” Fed. R . C r i m . P. 32. 2, A dvi s oryC om m i t t ee N ot es on 2000 A m endment ( emphasi s added) . T her efor e, al though ci vi l i n natur e, beca us e a Sec t i on 853( n)T he onl ycourtt o fi nd Sect i on 853( n) cl ai m ant s el i gi bl e foratt orney s ’ fee s pur s uant 4 t o Sect i on 2465( b) i s the East ern D i s tr i ctof V i r gi ni a i n U ni t ed Stat es v. D ’

Es clavel l es , 541 F. Supp. 2d 794 ( E . D . V a. 2008) . T hatcas e, how ever , w as r ever s ed on other g ro u n d s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. B uk , 3 1 4 F . A p p ’x 5 6 5 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). T h e F o u rth C irc u it d id notaddr es s the i s s ue. -10- p roc ee d ing rem ains u n d er the large r cr i m i nalfor fei tur e umbre l l a, appl i cat i on of Sect i on 2 4 6 5 ( b ) wo u l d f

ru s tr a t e Co n g r e s s ’ i n t e n tt o r e f o r m c ivilf

o rf e itu re p ro c e e d in g s . See, e. g. , H .R . R e p . N o . 1 0 6 -1 9 2 , a v a ila b le a t 1 9 9 9 W L 4 0 6 8 9 2 , at * 2 (n o tin g th a t C A F R A “ w o u ld cr eat e gene r al rul es r el at i ng t o fede r al ci vi l for fei tur e pr ocee di ngs des i gned t o i ncr eas e the d u e p roc ess s af

eg u ard s fo r pro p ertyo w n ers w h o se p rop ertyh as b ee n seize d ”). O urhol di ng i s cons i s t entw i th U ni t ed Stat es v. H

uynh , N o . 0 8 - 2 0 5 4 1 , 2 0 0 9 WL 1 6 8 5 1 3 9 (5 th C ir . J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( u n p u b lis h e d ), cer t . deni ed , 2 0 0 9 W L 2 9 6 9 4 8 2 (20 0 9 ), w hi ch addr es s ed an a nal ogous i s s ue. T her e, pl ai nt i ffs , w ho, pur s uantt o a pr ocee di ng under18 U . S. C . § 983( e) , s etas i de the for fei tur e of pr operty , s oughtatt orney s ’ fee s as s ubs t ant i al l ypr evai l i ng part i es underC A FR A . A ccor di ng t o the court , how ever , Sect i on 24 65 (b) “app l i es onlyt o civi l proceed i ng s ‘ to fo rfe it p rop erty , ’ th at i s, civil fo rfe itu re act i ons i ni t i at ed bythe G overnm ent . ” I d. a t * 1 . B e c a u se “ [ p ]la in tiff s’ c laim . . . [s o u g h t] t o s et as i de a forfei ture that ha[d] al readyoccu rr ed, ” t he co urtdecli ned t o aw ard at t orney s’ f e e s . I d. 4B e c a u se w e h o ld th a t S e c tio n 8 5 3 (n ) p ro c e e d in g s a re n o t p ro c e e d in g s “ to f o rf e it 5 pr operty ” and ther efor e nots ubj ectt o C A FR A ’ s att orney s ’ fee pr ovi s i ons , w e nee d not addr es s w hetherappel l ant s s ubs t ant i al l ypr evai l ed. -11- S im ilarly , b e c a u se a S e c tio n 8 5 3 (n ) a n c ill a ryp ro c e e d in g is n o t a p ro c e e d in g “ to f o rf e it p ro p e rty ,” a p p e llan ts a re n o t en tit led to a tto rn e y s’ f e e s, c o sts , o r in ter e st p u rsu a n t to S ec ti o n 2 4 6 5 (b). 5 O urhol di ng al s o comport s w i th the Ei ghth C i r cui t ’ s r eas oni ng i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Mos er , th e o n l yc o u r to f a p p e a l s t o a d d r e s s th i s i s s u e . N o . 0 8 - 2 9 0 9 , – F . 3 d – , 2 0 0 9 WL 3837292 ( 8th C i r . N ov. 18, 2009) ( hol di ng thats ucce s s ful cl ai m anti n Sect i on 853( n) a n c ill a ryp ro c e e d in g m a yn o t re c o v e r a tto rn e y s’ f e e s u n d e r S e c tio n 2 4 6 5 (b ), in p a rt d u e to g o v e rn m e n t’s p e rsu a siv e a rg u m e n t th a t S e c tio n 8 5 3 (n ) p ro c e e d in g is a k in to q u iet title ac ti o n ). C. Fi nal l y , w e addr es s w hetherappel l ant s ar e ent i t l ed t o an aw ar d of i nt er es tfr om t he U nit ed S t at es. I n Li br ar y of C ongr es s v. Shaw , the S up rem e C ou rtenu m erat ed the “no -i nter est rul e, ” hol di ng that“[i ] n t he abs ence of expr es s congr es s i onal cons entt o the aw ar d of i nt er es ts epar at e fr om a gene r al w ai verof i m m uni tyt o s ui t , the U ni t ed St at es i s i m m une f ro m a n in ter e st a w a rd .” 4 7 8 U .S . 3 1 0 , 3 1 4 (1 9 8 6 ); accord Lars on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 274 F .3 d 6 4 3 , 6 4 7 -4 8 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. $30, 0006. 25 i n U . S. C ur r ency , 236 F. 3d-12-

6 1 0 , 6 1 3 -1 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. $7, 990. 00 i n U . S. C ur r ency , 170 F. 3d 843, 8 4 4 -4 5 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); I kel i onw u v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 1 5 0 F . 3 d 2 3 3 , 2 3 9 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). In th e c o n tex t o f

se ize d f u n d s, h o w e v e r, th e S ix th , N in th , an d E lev e n th C irc u its p e rm it c la im s o f

in te re s t to p ro c e e d a g a in s t th e U n ite d S ta te s . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. 1 4 6 1 W . 4 2 n d S t. , 2 5 1 F . 3 d 1 3 2 9 , 1 3 3 8 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); U n itedS ta tes v . $ 5 1 5 ,0 6 0 .4 2 in U. S. C ur r ency , 15 2 F . 3d 49 1, 50 4 (6t h C i r. 19 98 ). T he leadi ng m i no ri tycase i s U ni t ed Stat es v. $277, 000 U. S. C ur r ency , 69 F. 3d 1491 ( 9th C i r . 1995) . T her e, the courtfound thatbeca us e the i nt er es ton s ei zed f unds “bec [a] m e partof the r es , ” i ts houl d “be r etur ned w i th the r es t o the cl ai m ant . ” I d. at1496. A ccor di ng t o the court , thatr es ul tdi d not re q u ire th e U n ited S tate s “ to p a yf o r d a m a g e it h a s d o n e ,” b u t ra th e r to “ d isg o rg e b e n e f its thati thas actual l yand ca l cul abl yr ece i ved fr om an as s etthati thas been hol di ng i m pr oper l y . ” I

d. a t 1 4 9 8 ; s ee al

s o i d. at1494 ( obs ervi ng that“i n anynor m al comm er ci al di s put e overpr operty , the di s put ed pr opertyw oul d, as s oon as pr act i cal , be pl ace d i n an e s c ro w a c c o u n t to e a rn in te re s t th a t w o u ld g o to w h o e v e r w a s th e u ltim a te w in n e r” ). A la te r N in th C ir c u it o p in io n , C ar vaj alv. U ni t ed Stat es , obs erved thatthe mi nor i tyvi ew w as c o n sis ten t w ith C o n g re ss ’ in ten t in p a ss in g C A F R A , a s tatu te th a t “r a tifie d th e o u tco m e , if notthe r at i onal e” of

the mi nor i typer s pect i ve. 521 F. 3d 1242, 1248- 49 ( 9th C i r . 2008) (qu o tat ion o m itted). T he mi nor i tyvi ew , how ever , i s atodds w i th Shaw . F ir s t, Shaw expl i ci t l ynot ed that “the for ce of

the no- i nt er es trul e ca nnotbe avoi ded s i m pl ybydevi s i ng a new name foran-13-

ol d i ns t i tut i on. ” 478 U . S. at319. T hus , w hetherl abel ed as damages , l os s , earned i ncrem ent, j ustcom pen sat i on , dis cou nt, off set , pen al tyor anyothert erm , the n o-i nter est ru le re m a in s a p p lic a b le . In o th e r w o rd s , in te re s t b ya n yo th e r n a m e is s till i n te re s t. S e c o n d , Shaw l eftno do ub tthat “[c] ou rt s l ack the po w er t o aw ard i nter estagainst the U ni t ed St at es on the bas i s of w hattheythi nk i s ori s nots ound pol i cy . ” 478 U . S. at 3 2 1 ; s ee al

s o Lars on , 274 F. 3d at647 ( “[N ] ei therfai rnes s cons i der at i ons norrul es appl i cabl e t o pr i vat e di s put es can a l one pr ovi de gr ounds forabr ogat i ng s over ei gn i m m uni ty . ”) . T hus , the mi nor i tyvi ew expr es s ed i n $277, 000 i n U . S. C ur r ency ( fi ndi ng pr i vat e tr ans act i ons i ns truct i ve) and C ar vaj al(re ly in g o n C A F R A ’s le g isla tiv e h isto ry ) is i n confl i ctw i th Shaw . W e choos e t o fol l ow the maj or i tyappr oach a nd hew t o the l ett erof Shaw by hol di ng that , i n the abs ence of expr es s congr es s i onal cons entt o the contr ary , the U ni t ed S tate s is im m u n e f

ro m a n a w a rd o f

in ter e st. A p p e llan ts p o in t to n o g o v e rn in g sta tu te ent i t l i ng them t o i nt er es t . T her efor e, appel l ant s m aynotr ecove ri nt er es tagai ns tthe U nit ed S t at es. III . F o r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d a b o v e , w e w ill a f f ir m th e o rd e r o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .