FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 10, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 91 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 9- cr-0 00 47 -MS S-GJ K-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us PATRICK CONNOLLY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 10 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Pat ric k C on no ll y

ap pe al s pr o s e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g h is m ot io nfo r th e return o f pr op ert y , whi chwe co ns tru e li be ral ly to h av e b een fil edpu rs ua nt

to Fed .R.Cri m .P. 41 (g ). In 2 01 0, Co nn ol ly ple d g ui lt y to on e co un t o f en ti ci ng a m in orto en ga ge in sex ua ll y ex pl ic itact iv it y

forth e p ur

po se of p ro du ci ng ch il d po rn og rap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 51 (a) a nd(e). In hi s wri tt enpl ea ag reem en t, Co nn ol ly andth e g ov ern m en t ag reedth athe wou ldfor fei t: “ th e it em s se iz edfro m

th e d efen da ntas r efl ect edin th e se arch warran ts ex ecu te d i n t hi s in ve st ig at io n t ha t co nt ai n c hi ldpo rn og rap hy”; “ an y co m pu te r equi pm en t as de fin edin 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 6, s ei zedfro m th e d efen da ntth atco nt ai n[ s] chi ld po rn og rap hy”; an d “ th e co m pu te r equi pm en t t ha t was th e subjec t o f th e se arch warra nt s ex ecu te d i n t hi s i nv es ti ga ti onth atco nt ai n[ s] chi ldpo rn og rap hy.” After th e co urt en te reda fi na l ju dg m en t, Co nn ol ly m ov ed pr o s e forth e return o f “ an y an d a ll pe rs on al pro pe rty sei zedin th is cri m in al act io n, as agre ed up on in [h is

] pl ea agre emen t ” (em

ph as is ad de d) . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d h is m ot io n upo n fin di ng th athe ag reedto for fei t al l i te m s as so ci at edwith h is off en se . The co urt di d n otsp eci fy

th e p ro vi si on un de r whi ch itco ns tru edCo nn ol ly’ s m ot io n t o b e fil ed , or wh ethe r th e d en ia l was with o r witho utpre jud ic e. On ap pe al , bo th Co nn ol ly andth e g ov ern m en t co nc urth atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r th e return o f pr op erty be cau se th e co urt s ho ul d h av e rea d h is m ot io n t o re fer o nl y to th e p ro pe rty to wh ic h h e was 2ot he rwis e en ti tl ed , th atis , pro pe rty sei zedfro m hi m th atwas n otass oc ia te d wi th hi s o ffen se . The g ov ern m en t ad ds th at , as C on no ll y fil edhi s m ot io n pr o s e , th e di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e g iv enhi m anop po rtu ni ty to cl ari fy th e p ro pe rty he so ug htbe fo re d en y in g h im rel ie f. W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re tu rnpro pe rty in acri m in al cas e fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. De L a Ma ta , 53 5 F .3d12 67 , 12 79 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Ple ad in gs fil edby pr o s e li ti ga nt s ar e en ti tl edto a li be ral co ns tru ct io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Webb , 56 5 F .3d78 9, 7 92 (11 thCir . 20 09 ). The g ov ern m en t’s

“ co nc es si on of apo in t o n app eal is by no m ean s d is po si ti ve of aleg al is su e.” Gil be rt v. Uni te d Sta tes , 64 0 F .3d12 93 , 13 06 n.1 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) ( en ba nc ). Und er Fe de ral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 4 1( g) , “ [a] pers onag gr ie ve d b y anun la wfu l s earc h andsei zu re o f pr op ert y or b y th e d ep riv at io n o f pr op ert y m ay m ov e fo r th e p ro pe rty’ s re tu rn .” Ru le 41 als o re qu ire s t ha t l aw en fo rcem en t pr ep are a n i nv en to ry

of a ll sei zedpro pe rty andde li ve r a co py of th e in ve nt ory to th e d is tri ctco urt, wh ic h, i n turn, m us t d el iv er a co py to t he de fen da ntup on hi s reque st . Fed .R.Cri m .P. 41 (f)(1 ). Whe n am ot io n fo r th e return o f pr op ert y un de r Ru le 41 (g ) is fil edaft er a co nv ic ti on , we tre atitas aciv il act io n i n e qu it y . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ho wel l , 42 5 F .3d97 1, 9 74 (11 th Cir20 05 ); Uni te d Sta tes v. Po tes Ra mir ez , 26 0 F .3d 313 10 , 13 14 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (h ol di ng th ata Ru le 41 m ot io n fo r return o f pr op ert y

is a ci vi l ac ti on subjec t t o the 60 -d ay ap pe al pe rio d i n F ed .R.App .P. 4(a )(1 )(B) ). A di st ric t co urt s ho ul d g ran t re li ef o nl y if t he m ov an t m eet s t wo re qu ire m en ts . Firs t, th e m ov an t m

us t d em on st rat e th athe ha s a p os se ss ory in te res t i n t he sei zed pr op erty . How el l , 42 5 F .3dat 9 74 (ho ld in g t ha t t he de fen da ntha d n o p os se ss ory in te res t i n c as h h e rec ei ve d dur in g aco nt ro ll edpu rch as e an d fi rearm s t ha t h e wou ldno t l eg al ly be en ti tl edto po ss es s as a co nv ic te d fe lo n) . Seco nd , th e m ov an t m us t s ho w th athe ha s “ cl ean ha nd s” with re sp ectto th atpro pe rty. Id. ; se e a ls o Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma ch ado , 46 5 F .3d13 01 , 13 07 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (h ol di ng th atth e di st ric t co urt ac te d wi th init s d is cret io n i n d en y in g t he de fen da nt ’s Rul e 4 1( g) m ot io n b ecau se to do ot he rwis e wou ldha ve returne d t he fru it s o f hi s cr im es ), ab ro ga te d o n o th er

gr ou nd s , Bow les v. Ru ss el l , 55 1 U.S. 2 05 , 12 7 S .Ct. 2 36 0, 1 68 L.Ed.2 d 9 6 (2 00 7) . Whe re a d efen da ntis co nv ic te d o f anoff en se in vo lv in g t he se xu al ex pl oi ta ti on of amin or , as was Co nn ol ly, he m us t fo rfei t h is in te res t i n a ny: (1 ) im ag es co nt ai ni ng sex ua ll y ex pl ic itde pi ct io ns of m in or s; (2) pro pe rty co ns ti tu ti ng or t race ab le to pro fit s fr om th e o ffen se ; an d (3 ) pr op ert y us edor in te nd edto be us edto co m m itth e o ffen se . 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 3( a). The requi redba la nc in g o f th e equi ti es is a ta skforth e d is tri ctco urt t o pe rfo rm in th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e. De La Mat a , 53 5 F .3dat 1 27 9 (v acat in g t he di st ric t 4co urt’s re in st at em en t o f fo rfei tu re o rd ers be cau se itdi d n otex pr es sl y co ns id er the de fen da nt s’ Rul e 4 1( g) m ot io ns ). Whe re a m or e car efu ll y dra fte d p le ad in g m ig ht st at e a cl ai m

forrel ie f, th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d p ro vi de th e p la in ti ff atlea ston e op po rtu ni ty to am en d b efo re d is m is si ng with p reju di ce. Se e Ban k v. Pit t , 92 8 F .2d 11 08 , 11 12 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ), ov er tu rn ed in pa rt byW agne r v. Da ewo o Hea vy In du s. Am. Co rp ., 31 4 F .3d54 1, 5 42 & n .1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) ( en ba nc ). Whi le di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y ob se rv edth atCo nn ol ly agree d t o fo rfei t of fen se -rel at edpro pe rty in t he pl ea ag reem en t, i t fa il edto reco gn iz e th atth e p le a ag reem en t d idno t p ro vi de forth e fo rfei tu re o f pr op ert y un rel at edto th e o ffen se , or readCo nn ol ly’ s pr o s e m ot io n t o s eekon ly the pro pe rty to wh ic h h e was en ti tl ed un de r th e p le a ag reem en t an d t he co nt ro ll in g s ta tu te s. Acco rd in gl y , we agr ee wi th th e p art ie s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g C on no ll y ’s m ot io n, an d re m an d wi th in st ru ct io ns to : (1 ) de te rm in e th e ap pr op ria te forum in whi chto ad

jud ic at e Co nn ol ly’ s m ot io n t o re tu rnpro pe rty; (2 ) de vi se m eas ur es , to th e ex te ntpe rm it te d u nd er Ru le 41 an d i f itde te rm in es th atitret ai ns juri sd ic ti on , to en su re tha t Co nn ol ly is m ad e aware of a ll pro pe rty pres en tl y in th e go ve rn m en t’s p os se ss io n; (3) pe rm itCo nn ol ly to re -fi le a Ru le 41 (g ) m ot io n t ha t cl ari fie s t he pro pe rty in wh ic h h e b el ie ve s h e co nt in ue s t o re ta inanin te res t; an d (4 ) or de r th e g ov ern m en t t o fi le a res po ns e th atin fo rm s t he co urt o f it s o wn 5in te res t o r th e ab se nc e th ereo f, in th e p ro pe rty sp eci fie d i n C on no ll y ’s ren ewed

m ot io n, as well as a ny sub se qu en t ac ti on s t ha t m ay im pa ctth e d is po si ti on of h is reque st . VACATED AND REMANDED.

6