FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 15, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 53 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 20 93 1- CR-M GC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us JUAN CARLOS PALACIOS GONZAL EZ, 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 ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 15 , 20 10 ) Befo re BLACK, BARKETT an d HULL, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ju an Carl os Pal aci os Gon zal ez ap pe al s pr o s e th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f 1 hi s m ot io n, fi le d p ur su an t t o R ul e 4 1( g) of t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e, fo r th e return o f $5 00 an d o th er p ers on al pro pe rty tak enfro m hi m pu rs ua ntto hi s arres t. He as se rts th e d is tri ctco ur t ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g hi s m ot io n b ecau se th ere i s a p res um pt io n t ha t h e is en ti tl edto th e p ro pe rty, and th e Gov ern m en t fa il edto pro vi de anad equa te jus ti fic at io n fo r it s fa il ur e to return it . W e ad dr es s h is cla im , firs t wi th reg ardto th e $ 50 0 a ndne xtwit h re ga rdto th e
rem ai ni ng pro pe rty. W e aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng as t o t he form er an d
rev ers e an d re m an d a s t o t he lat te r. I. Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 4 1( g) st at es : [a] pe rs on ag gr ie ve d by an un la wfu l se arch an d se iz ur e of pr op ert y or by th e de p r i v a t i o n of pr op ert y m ay m ov e fo r th e pr op erty ’s return. The m ot io n m

us t be fil ed in th e di st ric t whe re t h e p r o p e rty was se iz ed
. The co urt m

us t rece iv e e v i d e n c e on an y factua l is su e ne ces sa ry to de ci de th e m ot io n. If it gr an ts th e m ot io n, th e co ur t m us t return th e pr op ert y to th e m o v a n t , bu t m ay im po se reas on ab le co nd it io ns to pr ot ect acce ss to th e pr op ert y an d it s us e in la te r pr oc eed in gs . Ove ral l, “ [a] m ot io n t o re tu rnsei zedpro pe rty un de r Ru le 41 (g ), is a m ot io n i n equi ty, in whi ch co urts wil l d et erm in e al l t he equi tabl e co ns id erat io ns in ord er t o
We “show a le niency

to pro se litigants not enjoyed by those with the bene fit of a leg al 1 education.” GJR I

nvs., Inc . v. County of Escambia, Fla. , 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 ( 11th Cir. 1998). 2m ak e a fai r an d ju stde ci si on .” Uni te d Sta te s v. Ho wel l , 42 5 F .3d97 1, 9 74 (11 th

Ci r. 20 05 ). “ Whe n an o wne r in vo ke s R ul e 4 1( g) aft er t he clo se of a ll cri m in al pr oc eed in gs , th e co urt t reat s t he m ot io n fo r return o f pr op ert y as aciv il act io n i n equi ty.” Id

. Whe n adi st ric t co urt d en ie s a Rul e 4 1( g) m ot io n, we re vi ew qu es ti on s o f la w de no vo an d t he di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs for cle ar erro r. Id

. at97 3. In ad di ti on , we rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a Ru le 41 (g ) m ot io n fo r equi tabl e rea so ns foran ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta te s v. Ma ch ad o , 46 5 F .3d13 01 , 13 07 (11 th Cir
. 20 06 ), ov er ru le d o n o th er gr ou nd s b y Uni te d Sta te s v. Lo

pe z , 56 2 F .3d13 09 , 13 13 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9)
. II. W e aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Pal aci os Gon zal ez’s m ot io n a s t o t he $5 00
. To i nv ok e Ru le 41 (g ), th e m ov an t m us t s ho w bo th a po ss es so ry in te res t i n th e se iz edpro pe rty andha ve cle an ha nd s. How el l , 42 5 F .3dat 9 74
. Pal aci o Go nz al ez p le ad edgu il ty to o ne co un t o f kn owi ng ly and in te nt io na ll y

im po rti ng 10 0 g ram s o r m or e o f he ro in in to th e Uni te d S ta te s, i n vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 9 52 (a), an d o ne co un t o f po ss es si on wit h i nt en t t o di st rib ut e 1 00 gra m s o r m or e o f he ro in , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . In pl ead in g g ui lt y , Pal aci os Gon zal ez ag reed , in op en co ur t, t o fo rfei t “ al l o f hi s ri gh t,
3ti tl e an d i nt eres t” in th e $ 50 0 re fere nc edin th e in di ct m en t, p ur su an t t o

21 U.S.C. § 8 53 . The Go ve rn m en t t he n m ov edfora pr el im in ary or de r of fo rfei tu re fo r th e $ 50 0 m en ti on edin th e in di ct m en t, p ur su an t t o § 85 3. The di st ric t co urt ad op te d t he Gov ern m en t’s m ot io n, an d p rel im in ari ly ord eredth atth e $5 00 be for fei te d t o t he Gov ern m en t u nd er § 85 3. The di st ric t co urt t he n
se nt en cedPal aci os Gon zal ez t o ato ta l s en te nc e o f 57 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d
or de red“ th e fo rfei tu re co ns is te ntwit h t he in di ctm en t.” Afte r Pal aci os Gon zal ez was sen te nc edan d t he co ur t en te redhi s ju dg m en t, th e Gov ern m en t fi le d ade cl arat io n o f pu bl ic at io n, wh ic h n ot edth at , pu rs ua ntto § 8 53 (n )(1 ), no ti ce o f th e fo rfei tu re fo r th e $ 50 0 h adbe en po st edon li ne forat l eas t 30 co ns ecu ti ve da y s. In ad di ti on , th e Gov ern m en t m ov edfora fi na l o rd er o f fo rfei tu re wi th reg ardto th e $ 50 0. Th e d is tri ctco ur t ad op te d t he Gov ern m en t’s
m ot io n, an d i ss ue d afin al ord er o f fo rfei tu re re ga rd in g P al aci os Gon zal ez’s in te res t i n t he $5 00 . In p art ic ul ar, t he ord er s ta te d P al aci os Gon zal ez fo rfei te d

“ al l ri gh t, t it le an d i nt eres t” in th e $ 50 0 a ndve st edcle ar t it le in th e Uni te d S ta te s. Co ns eque nt ly, be cau se Pal aci os Gon zal ez ca nn otsh ow a p os se ss ory in te res t in th e $ 50 0, an d P al aci os Gon zal ez h as un cl ean ha nd s wi th reg ardto th e m on ey , as th e $ 50 0 was sei zedfro m hi s p os se ss io n dur in g the co ur se of h is dru g- tra ffi ck in g, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h im equi tabl e rel ie f un de r
4Ru le 41 (g ). Se e Ma ch ado , 46 5 F .3dat 1 30 7 (h ol di ng th atitwou ldbe in equi tabl e

to return t he fru it s o f th e m ov an t’s cr im es to th e m ov an t); How el l , 42 5 F .3dat 9 74
. III. W e rev ers e th e d is tri ctco ur t’s ru li ng as t o the rem ai nd er o f Pal aci os Gon zal ez’s p ro pe rty. T he di st ric t co ur t d en ie d P al aci os Gon zal ez’s m ot io n a s t o th e $ 50 0, b as edso le ly on t he Gov ern m en t’s u nv eri fie d c la im s m ad e in it s re sp on se to Pal aci os Gon zal ez’s Ru le 41 (g ) m ot io n. The Gov ern m en t cl ai m edit“pr ov id ed
m or e th an ad equa te op po rtu ni ty to p ic k up t he pro pe rty,” andth atup on th e pa ss ag e o f th e 3 0- da y

pe rio d re qu ire d b efo re co ns id eri ng th e p ro pe rty aban do ne d, th e Gov ern m en t co nt in ue d t o p os se ss th e p ers on al pro pe rty un ti l i t g av e fi na l
no ti ce t ha t i t wo ul d b e d is po se d. Aft er t he Gov ern m en t fa il edto rece iv e a
res po ns e to th e n ot ic e, th e Gov ern m en t co ns id eredth e p ro pe rty aban do ne d a nd de st ro y editin acco rd an ce wi th ag en cy po li cy . Inin te rp ret in g R

ul e 4 1( g) , we ha ve st at edth at“ th e p ers on fro m who m th e 2 pr op erty was s ei zedis pre su m edto ha ve a ri gh t t o i ts return, an d t he go ve rn m en t
m us t d em on st rat e th atitha s a l eg it im at e rea so n t o re ta in th e p ro pe rty.” Uni te d St at es v. Pot es Rami re

z , 26 0 F .3d13 10 , 13 14 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d)
.
In 2002, Fe dera l Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) was re classified a s Rule 41(g ) with 2 no substantive chang es. Howell , 425 F.3d at 976 n. 3.
5“ The go ve rn m en t m us t d o m or e th an st at e, wit ho utdo cu m en ta ry supp ort, t ha t i t n o lo ng er p os se ss es th e p ro pe rty at is su e.” Id

. (qu ot in g Uni te d Sta te s v. C ha mbe rs , 19 2 F .3d27 4, 3 77 –7 8 (3 d C ir. 1 99 9) . Con se qu en tl y , when th e g ov ern m en t d oe s
no t v eri fy it s cl ai m th atth e se iz edpro pe rty was d es tro y ed , andth ere i s n o
ev id en ce i n t he reco rdto sh ow t ha t t he pro pe rty was actua ll y de st ro y ed , th e go ve rn m en t fa il s t o m eetit s b ur de n u nd er Ru le 41 (g ). Id

. In t hi s ca se , th e Gov ern m en t o ffer edno ev id en ce t o s up po rt i ts cla im th atth e rem ai nd er o f Pal aci os Gon zal ez’s p ers on al be lo ng in gs ha d b een de st ro y ed
. Pal aci os Gon zal ez as se rts th atif t he Gov ern m en t ca nn otreturn t he pro pe rty he reque st s, h e sh ou ldbe gra nt edeit he r equi tabl e rel ie f orm on ey da m ag es . In Pot es Rami re

z , alt ho ug h we n ot edth atth e Gov ern m en t h adso ve rei gn imm un it y pr ev en ti ng th e m ov an t’s cl ai m form on ey

da m ag es , we di d re co gn iz e a d is tri ct
co urt’s ab il it y

to fas hi on equi tabl e rel ie f in in st an ces wher e p ro pe rty hadbe en de st ro y ed
. Id

. at 1 31 5– 16 . Becau se th e Gov ern m en t i n Pot es Rami re zfai le d t o pr ov id e ev id en ce s up po rti ng it s cl ai m s t ha t the m ov an t’s p ro pe rty hadbe en de st ro y ed , we rev ers edth e d is tri ctco ur t’s d en ia l o f th e 4 1( g) m ot io n a nd
rem an de d t o t he di st ric t co urt t o e nabl e th e p art ie s t o p res en t ev id en ce tha t wo ul d al lo w th e co urt t o m ak e d et erm in at io n abo utwhatrel ie f m ig htbe equi tabl e. Id

. at 13 14 -1 6.
6Bec au se th e Gov ern m en t fa il edto pre se ntan y ev id en ce tha t Pa la ci os Gon zal ez’s rem ai ni ng pro pe rty was d es tro y ed , we vac at e th e d is tri ctco ur t’s de ci si on wit h re ga rdto th e p ro pe rty andrem an d t o a ll ow t he parti es to pre se nt
ev id en ce as to whet he r th e p ro pe rty was b een de st ro y ed , and , if s o, wh atequi tabl e rel ie f m ig htbe ap pr op ria te . AFFIRMED in pa rt, VACATED AND REMANDED in pa rt.

7