UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

$112,061.00 IN UNITED STATES 

CURRENCY, 

 Defendant. 

------------------------------ 

JAMIE SANCHEZ, 

 Claimant - Appellant. 

No. 16-1388 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-02823-KMT) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

In this in rem civil forfeiture of $112,061.00, claimant Jamie Sanchez appeals 

the summary judgment granted to the government. He claimed to be the owner of the 

currency that law enforcement officers found in his residence. The action was filed 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It 

may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

May 24, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), which authorizes forfeiture of currency used in 

illicit drug trafficking. 

I. Background

Mr. Sanchez filed a Verified Claim to the currency, as authorized by 18 U.S.C. 

§ 983(a)(4)(A) and Rule G(5)(a) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or 

Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. He then filed a Motion to Apply the 

Exclusionary Rule seeking to exclude the evidence, including the subject currency, 

obtained pursuant to a search warrant for his residence. The district court1

 observed 

that a Colorado state court had addressed the same issue in its criminal proceedings 

against Mr. Sanchez. The state court ruled that although the search warrant was an 

impermissible general warrant, the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement 

applied. Accordingly, the state court denied Mr. Sanchez’s motion to suppress the 

evidence. The district court applied the doctrine of issue preclusion, also known as 

collateral estoppel, and denied the motion to suppress the evidence in the present 

case. 

The government filed a motion for summary judgment asserting the following 

facts: (1) drug-enforcement officers purchased cocaine from Mr. Sanchez on two 

occasions in 2013; (2) at those times, Mr. Sanchez was on parole from a drug 

conviction; (3) during a parole visit to Mr. Sanchez’s residence on May 15, 2014, 

officers found a large sum of cash and two handguns in a bedside drawer; (4) because 

 1

 The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c). 
3 

Mr. Sanchez was prohibited by the conditions of his parole from possessing weapons, 

upon discovery of the handguns the parole officers contacted the police department 

who arranged for a search warrant; (5) in executing the search warrant officers found 

additional cash underneath a sofa and in the trunk of a car in the garage; (6) the total 

amount of currency located and seized from Mr. Sanchez’s residence was 

$112,061.00 and is the defendant currency herein; (7) the search also revealed 

kilo-sized packaging material and lacquer thinner (drug-packaging materials); 

(8) Mr. Sanchez entered a guilty plea in Colorado state court to unlawful distribution 

based on the 2013 drug sales; and (9) Mr. Sanchez’s annual salary for the years 2011 

through 2014 did not exceed $24,000 and he had declined to answer discovery 

regarding other sources of income. Based on these facts, the government alleged that 

the defendant currency was the proceeds from Mr. Sanchez’s unlawful distribution of 

controlled substances. 

Mr. Sanchez responded to the government’s summary-judgment motion with 

only a single paragraph reiterating his position that the district court “was incorrect in 

determining the doctrine of Collateral Estoppel precluded his Motion to Apply the 

Exclusionary Rule.” Aplee. Supp. App. at 96. After analyzing the undisputed factual 

allegations in light of the applicable law, the district court granted summary 

judgment to the government. 

II. Applicable Law

 The government had the burden “to establish a ‘substantial connection 

between the property and [a criminal] offense.’” United States v. $252,300.00 in 
4 

U.S. Currency, 484 F.3d 1271, 1273 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 

§ 983(c)(3)). The government contended the currency was traceable to the illegal 

sale of narcotics and Mr. Sanchez was a drug dealer with past drug convictions and 

insufficient legitimate income to establish lawful ownership of the currency. 

 “We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment.” United 

States v. 16328 S. 43rd E. Ave., 275 F.3d 1281, 1284 (10th Cir. 2002). Summary 

judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(a). “When we apply this standard, we examine the record and any 

reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 

party.” 16328 S. 43rd E. Ave., 275 F.3d at 1284. If the opposing party “fails to 

properly address another party’s assertion of fact,” a district court may consider the 

fact undisputed and “grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting 

materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is 

entitled to it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) & (3). “Of course, in granting summary 

judgment based upon a failure to respond, a district court must still determine that 

summary judgment is appropriate.” Perez v. El Tequila, LLC, 847 F.3d 1247, 1254 

(10th Cir. 2017). 

III. Analysis

 The district court conducted the required summary-judgment analysis. In 

opposing summary judgment merely by relying on the same arguments made in his 

Motion to Apply the Exclusionary Rule, Mr. Sanchez failed to dispute the 
5 

government’s asserted facts. This is fatal to his case. See Kilcrease v. Domenico 

Transp. Co., 828 F.3d 1214, 1226 (10th Cir. 2016) (affirming summary judgment 

because nonmoving party failed to dispute moving party’s material factual 

assertions). We conclude that based on the undisputed facts, the government was 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

 Although we affirm the summary judgment due to Mr. Sanchez’s failure to 

controvert the material facts, we nevertheless consider his challenge to the district 

court’s order denying the Motion to Apply the Exclusionary Rule. The district court 

held that the doctrine of issue preclusion barred relitigation of the state court’s 

decision to deny Mr. Sanchez’s suppression motion. The preclusive effect of a state 

court judgment is governed by state law. Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic 

Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 380 (1985). Under Colorado law, the doctrine of issue 

preclusion prohibits relitigation of an issue when: 

(1) The issue precluded is identical to an issue actually litigated and 

necessarily adjudicated in the prior proceeding; (2) The party against whom 

estoppel was sought was a party to or was in privity with a party to the prior 

proceeding; (3) There was a final judgment on the merits in the prior 

proceeding; and (4) The party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a 

full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior proceeding. 

McNichols v. Elk Dance Colo., LLC (In re Water Rights of Elk Dance Colo., LLC), 

139 P.3d 660, 667 (Colo. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

 Mr. Sanchez contends that issue preclusion does not apply because the charges 

arising from the search of his residence were dropped, so he was unable to appeal the 

suppression ruling. He avers, without citation to the record, that the charges to which 
6 

he entered a guilty plea were unrelated to the charges arising from the search of his 

residence. Consequently, he argues, he could not have appealed the state court’s 

order denying his motion to suppress. 

The record reflects, however, that Mr. Sanchez was charged in state court in a 

single proceeding, case number 14CR2225, with two counts of distribution of 

cocaine based on 2013 cocaine sales, one count of possession of a weapon by a 

previous offender based on the 2014 search of his residence, and three habitual 

criminal counts. Aplee. Supp. App. at 14-16. The record further shows that 

Mr. Sanchez’s plea agreement in state court case number 14CR2225 included a 

provision whereby the prosecution agreed to dismiss counts two through six in 

exchange for Mr. Sanchez’s guilty plea to count one. Id. at 69-70. The order 

denying the motion to suppress bears the same case number. Aplt. App. at 47. Thus, 

it appears that after the state court denied his suppression motion, Mr. Sanchez 

entered a guilty plea to count one and the remaining counts were dismissed. If this 

was not the case, it was incumbent on Mr. Sanchez to provide, and cite to, the 

documents supporting his position. See United States v. Brody, 705 F.3d 1277, 1281 

(10th Cir. 2013) (rejecting appellate claims because appellant failed to provide a 

sufficient record); 10th Cir. R. 10.3(A) (“Counsel must designate a record on appeal 

that is sufficient for considering and deciding the appellate issues.”). 

 By entering into the plea agreement Mr. Sanchez “forfeit[ed] his right to 

appellate review of the suppression of evidence,” Neuhaus v. People, 289 P.3d 19, 23 

(Colo. 2012) (en banc). In addition, the plea agreement includes a waiver of “the 
7 

right to appeal any conviction.” Aplee. Supp. App. at 71. Mr. Sanchez cannot now 

be heard to complain that he was denied an opportunity for meaningful appellate 

review of his suppression motion. Cf. Carpenter v. Young ex. rel Young, 773 P.2d 

561, 568 (Colo. 1989) (en banc) (holding summary judgment was entitled to 

preclusive effect because all criteria were met including the right to review, even 

though the parties “waived any right to such review when they entered into [a] 

settlement agreement”). 

IV. Conclusion

 The district court’s judgment is affirmed. 

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge