FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUG 30, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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 1- 10 91 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cr-1 40 18 -KMM -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RICHAR D NOEL QUEZADA , 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st30 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, HU LL andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: On J un e 1 0, 2 01 0, Ri ch ardQuez ad a p le d g ui lt y to two co un ts of v io la ti ng 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 4( a)(2 )(B) (ii ) (kno win gl y bri ng in g i ll eg al ali en s t o t he Uni te d S ta te sup on th e h ig h s eas forth e p ur po se of c omm erci al adva nt ag e o r fi na nc ia l g ai n) , and th e d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edhi m to co nc urren t p ris on term s o f th ree years. 1 As p artof h is gu il ty ple as , Quez ad a st ip ul at edth athe bro ug htth e il le ga l al ie ns fro m

th e Bah am as to th e Uni te d S ta te s o n a34 foo t Well craf t M ari ne bo at . On Fe brua ry

22 , 20 10 , th e d at e o f Que zad a’s arre st , th e Dep artm en t o f Hom el an d Secu rit y , Cus to m s an d B or de r Pat ro l (“ CBP” ) se iz edth e v es se l p ur su an t t o 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 4( b) as a n i ns tru m en ta li ty use d i n t he co m m is si on of afed eral fel on y , i.e., 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 4( a)(2 )(B) (ii ). The v es se l, i t was lat er d et erm in ed , was reg is te redto All Pro fes si on al Elec tri cal Co nt ract or s, In c. (“ APECI”) , a co m pa ny lo cat edin Bo ca Ra to n, Fl or id a. The n ex t d ay , Feb ru ary 23 , CBP s erv edQuez ad a wit h aCiv il Ass etFo rfei tu re Re fo rm Act (“ CAFRA” ) Sei zu re No ti ce, an Elec ti on of Pro ceed in gs Fo rm , anda Sei zedAss etCla im Fo rm , all of wh ic h i nf

orm edhi m th atth e v es se l was subjec t t o c iv il for fei tu re an d t ha t CB P b el ie ve d t ha t h e m ig ht ha ve anin te res t i n i t. Ass um in g t ha t Qu ezad a h adsu ch in te res t, the no ti ce in st ru ct edhi m

to st at e h is in te res t i n t he ve ss el un de r oa th vi a th e Sei zedAss et Cl ai m Fo rm .

We affir med Quezada ’s sentenc es in United States v. Que zada , 409 Fe d.App’x 272 1 (11 Cir. 2010). t h 2Que zad a ex ecu te d t he form an d s ub m it te d i t t o t he CBP As se t Fo rfei tu re Offi ce. The Ass etFo rfei tu re Offi ce re jecte d t he form

be cau se itwas i nc om

pl et e, an d o n M arch 8, 2 01 0, v iacert ifi edm ai l, s en t Qu ezad a a s eco ndCAFRA Se iz ur e Not ic e an d S ei zedAss etCla im Fo rm , in fo rm in g h im

th athe ne ed edto subm itth e Fo rm to th e Offi ce b y

Marc h 3 0, 2 01 0, i f he wis he d t o h av e th e cas e ref erre d fo r co urt ac ti on . In ad di ti on to th is , th e Offi ce s en t t wo CAF RA Sei zu re No ti ces , on e vi a certi fie d m ai l, t o t he ve ss el ’s reg is te redown er, APECI; th e m ai li ng s wer e returne d “NotDeli ve rab le as Ad dr es se d, Un ab le to Fo rward .” The Ass etFo rfei tu re Offi ce re cei ve d n o re sp on se to th e ab ov e m ai li ng s. It th eref or e p ub li sh eda Not ic e o f Sei zu re i n a cco rd an ce wi th law; ag ai n, i t re cei ve d
no res po ns e. Thu s, o n M ay 17 , 20 10 , th e v es se l was adm in is tra ti ve ly forfe it edto th e Uni te d S ta te s an d o n Au gu st13 , 20 10 so ldat auc ti on . On Dec em

be r 6, 2 01 0, Qu ezad a m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 4 1( g) to ord er the ve ss el returne d t o h im . Atta ch edto hi s m ot io n was a co m

pl et edSei zedAss etCla im Fo rm . After t he Gov ern m en t fil edit s re sp on se , th e d is tri ctco urt, wi th ou t h ol di ng anev id en ti ary he ari ng , den ie d th e m ot io n, fi nd in g t ha t Qu ezad a h adno t s ho wn t ha t h e ev er m ai le d t he Fo rm to th e Ass etFo rfei tu re Offi ce; th atth e Gov ern m en t’s af fid av itest ab li sh edth atth e

3Fo rm

ha d n ev er b een rece iv ed ; an d tha t t he ve ss el ha vi ng be enso ld , th e Gov ern m en t h adno th in g t o re tu rn . Queza dano w app eal s t he co urt’s d eci si on . Que zad a co nc ed es th athe twi ce re cei ve d n ot ic e o f th e se iz ur e, an d t ha t t he
se co ndno ti ce i nf

orm edhi m

th atth e Ass etFo rfei tu re Offi ce h adno t re cei ve d a
co m pl et edSei zedAss etCla im Fo rm fro m hi m , bu t as se rts th athe res ub m it te d a
co m pl et edForm

to th e Offi ce. He th us co nt en ds th atanev id en ti ary he ari ng is requi redto de te rm in e whe th er h e m ai le d t he co m pl et edFo rm . And , si nc e th e ve ss el was auc ti on edan d i s n o l on ge r in th e Gov ern m en t’s p os se ss io n, h e reque st s m on ey da m ag es . As an in it ia l m at te r, we no te th atRu le 41 (g ) was no t t he ap pr op ria te m ean s of ch al le ng in g t he for fei tu re b ecau se th e v es se l was for fei te d i n a n a dm in is tra ti ve act io n, p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 98 1( a)(1 )(C)
. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Eu ba nk s , 16 9 F.3 d 6 72 , 67 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) (ho ld in g t ha t a R ul e 4 1( g) m ot io n i s u na va il ab le if pr op erty is ret ai ne d a s a r es ul t o f ci vi l fo rfei tu re i ns te adof f orus e as ev id en ce); Fed . R. Cri m . P. 1(a )(5 )(B) (st at in g t ha t t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e do no t ap pl y

to a ci vi l p ro pe rty forfe itur e fo r vi ol at io n o f a fed eral st atut e). In st ead , th e ex cl us iv e rem edy forch al le ng in g s uc h a n a ct io n i s u nd er the CAFRA. 18 U.S.C. § 9 83 (e)( 5) ; Valde rr ama v. Uni te d Sta te s , 41 7 F .3d11 89 , 11 96 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Even th ou gh , Quez ad a b ro ug hthi s m ot io n p ur su an t t o R ul e 4 1( g) , we 4li be ral ly con st ru e h is pr o s e m ot io n a s an act io n b ro ug htun de r CAFRA, as th e

di st ric t co urt ap paren tl y

di d. Se e Box er

X v. Harris , 43 7 F .3d11 07 , 11 10 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ) ( “ [

p ] ro se pl ead in gs are h el d t o ales s s tri ng en t s ta nd ardth anpl ead in gs dr aft edby atto rn ey s an d wi ll , th eref or e, be li be ral ly con st ru ed ” (quo ta ti on om it te d) ). Whi le we lac k ju ris di ct io n t o re vi ew th e m eri ts of an a dm in is tra ti ve fo rfei tu re, we h av e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w whet he r th e ag en cy fol lo wedth e p ro pe r pr oc edur al saf

eg ua rd s. Se e Valde rr ama , 41 7 F .3dat 1 19 6. Fu rth erm or e, fed eral
co urts can , in “ ex cep ti on al cas es ,” in vo ke equi tabl e juri sd ic ti on ov er ad m in is tra ti ve for fei tu res . Id
. at 1 19 7 (q uo ta ti onom it te d)
. Inrev ie win g adi st ric t co urt’s ci vi l fo rfei tu re d eci si on , we exa m in e th e co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r an d i ts co nc lu si on s o f la w de no vo . Uni te d St at es v. One 19 90 Beech craf t, 1 90 0 C Twi n En gi ne Tu rb o- Pro

p Ai rc ra ft , Ven ez ue la n Reg is tr at io n N o. Y V21 9T

, Ser ia l UC1 18 , 61 9 F .3d12 75 , 12 77 n.4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . Andwe rev ie w de no vo a di stric t co urt’s d eci si on no t t o i nv ok e it s equi tabl e juri sd ic ti on . Valde rr ama , 41 7 F .3dat 1 19 4. Inanadm in is tra ti ve for fei tu re p ro ceed in g, i nd iv idua ls who se pro pe rty in te res ts are atst ak e act io n are en ti tl edto no ti ce re as on ab ly calcu la te d t o i nf orm th em of t he pro ceed in g a ndto affo rdth em anop po rtu ni ty to b e h eard
. 5Valde rr ama , 41 7 F .3dat 1 19 6- 97 . In a c iv il for fei tu re p ro ceed in g i n d is tri ctco urt,

a p art y cla im in g a n i nt eres t i n t he for fei te d p ro pe rty who d idno t re cei ve no ti ce m us t s ho w th atth e Gov ern m en t s ho ul d h av e kno wn t ha t s uc h p art y ha d a n i nt eres t bu t fa il edto tak e rea so nabl e st ep s t o n ot ify the pa rty. 18 U.S.C. § 98 3( e)(1 )(A). Onc e th e cl ai m an t h as no ti ce, 1 8 U.S.C. § 98 3( a)(2 )(C) requi res th atth e cl ai m an t

“ (i) id en ti fy

th e sp eci fic pro pe rty bei ng cla im ed ; (i i) s ta te th e cl ai m an t’s i nt eres t i n su ch pro pe rty; an d (i ii ) be m ad e u nd er o ath, s ub ject t o p en al ty of pe rjury.” A fed eral co urt m ay

ex erci se equi tabl e juri sd ic ti on if “ th e p et it io ne r’s
co nduc t an d t he m eri ts of h is pe ti ti on requi re jud ic ia l re vi ew to pre ve ntm an ife st in jus ti ce.” Eub an ks , 16 9 F .3dat 6 74 . “ Su ch juri sd ic ti on , th eref or e, is on ly ap pr op ria te in ex cep ti on al cas es wher e equi ty dem an ds in te rv en ti on .” In re $6 7,4 70 .00 , 90 1 F .2d15 40 , 15 44 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). The co ns id erat io ns th atsh ou ld gu id e th e d is tri ctco urt’s ex erci se of e qu it ab le juri sd ic ti on are: (1 ) whe th er the go ve rn m en t ag en ts sei zedth e p ro pe rty in c al lo us di sr eg ardforth e co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s o f th e p et it io ne r; ( 2) whet he r th e p et it io ne r ha s anin di vi du al in te res t i n a ndne edfor th e m at eri al he se ek s t o h av e returne d; (3) whet he r th e p et it io ne r wou ldbe irr ep arab ly inju redby den ia l o f th e return o f th e p ro pe rty; an d (4 ) whe th er the pe ti ti on er h as anad equa te rem edy at l aw. Id
. at 1 54 5 (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . In ad di ti on , un de r CAFRA, t he cla im an t h as th e bu rd enof p ro vi ng th athe is an“ in no cen t o wne r,” wh ic h m ean s t ha t h e is an

6“ own er wh o d idno t kno w of the co nduc t g iv in g ri se to th e fo rfei tu re.” 1 8 U.S.C.

§ 9 83 (d )(2 )(A)(i ). The di stric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n d en y in g Qu ezad a’s m ot io n b ecau se Que zad a rec ei ve d n ot ic e o f th e p en di ng for fei tu re an d d idno t p ro du ce ev id en ce sh owi ng th athe fol lo wedth e in st ru ct io ns in th e n ot ic e fo r as se rti ng anin te res t i n th e v es se l. Fu rth er, co nt rary to Qu ezad a’s co nt en ti on , th e co urt was no t re qu ire d to ho ldanev id en ti ary he ari ng be cau se th ere wer e n o d is pu te d i ss ue s o f m at eri al fact . Queza dawas n otan“ in no cen t o wne r” an d t he m eri ts of h is pe ti ti on di d n ot requi re the co urt t o c on du ct“ jud ic ia l re vi ew to pre ve ntm an ife stin jus ti ce.” Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in de cl in in g t o g ran t eq ui tabl e rel ie f. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 9 83 (d )(2 )(A)(i ); Eub an ks , 16 9 F .3dat 6 74
. As fo r Que zad a’s cl ai m

for m on ey da m ag es in li euof t he return o f th e ve ss el , we no te th atso ve rei gn im m un it y pro te ct s t he Gov ern m en t fr om su chcla im be cau se th ere h as be enno ex pr es s an d u ne qu iv oc al st atut ory waiv er b y

Co ng res s whi chwou ldap pl y

in Quez ad a’s cas e. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Po te s Ra mir ez , 26 0 F.3 d 1 31 0, 1 31 5- 16 (11 Cir . 20 01 ). th 2 AFFIR MED.

“Sovere ign immunity

protec ts the g overnme nt from lawsuits for damag es unless 2 immunit y is ex pressly

waived by

statute.” Potes Ramirez , 260 F.3d at 1315-16 (holdingthat sovere ign immunity

protec ts the g overnme nt from money damag es sought under Rule 41(e )). 7