UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2290

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERMAINE LYDELL SANDERS,

 Claimant - Appellant,

and

$16,761 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, seized from Jermaine Lydell Sanders 

on 11/16/20 in Mooresville, NC,

 Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00053-KDB-DCK)

Submitted: November 6, 2023 Decided: November 27, 2023

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Maria T. Perry, PERRY LEGAL SERVICES, Durham, North Carolina; John 

Thorpe, Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, GOLDWATER INSTITUTE, 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2290 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 9
2

Phoenix, Arizona, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, John Seth Johnson, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Benjamin Bain-Creed, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2290 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 9
3

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine Lydell Sanders appeals from the district court’s order denying Sanders’ 

motion to stay and granting summary judgment to the Government in this civil forfeiture 

proceeding seeking forfeiture of $16,671 in U.S. currency (the “Currency”) seized from a 

rental car. On appeal, Sanders concedes that his appeal from the denial of his motion to 

stay has been mooted by related state court proceedings. However, he continues to pursue 

his claims that the district court erred in finding that Sanders lacked standing and granting 

summary judgment. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

To establish standing, Sanders must satisfy the “colorable interest” test, which 

requires a claimant to present “some evidence of ownership” beyond the mere assertion of 

an ownership interest in the property. United States v. Phillips, 883 F.3d 399, 403-04 (4th 

Cir. 2018). We view the evidence of standing in the light most favorable to him and draw 

all reasonable inferences in his favor. Id. at 405.

Sanders claims an ownership interest in the Currency. Under the colorable interest 

test, a claimant alleging an ownership interest in seized property must, at a minimum, 

present some evidence “regarding how the claimant came to possess the property.” Id. 

Although courts must refrain from weighing the evidence on summary judgment, courts 

“may lawfully put aside testimony” that is “undermined either by other credible evidence” 

or by “physical impossibility.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Here, Sanders testified at his deposition that nearly all of the Currency was a gift 

from his grandmother. While Sanders presented no objective evidence corroborating those 

facts, he asserts that his claim of ownership, coupled with his possession of the rental car 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2290 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 9
4

hours before the Currency was seized was sufficient to establish standing. We agree. See 

United States v. $148,840 in U.S. Currency, 521 F.3d 1268, 1277-78 (10th Cir. 2008) 

(holding that, for purposes of establishing standing, claimant’s assertion of ownership of 

currency is assumed to be true on this record, and such an assertion combined with the fact 

that currency was seized from the vehicle claimant was driving established constitutional 

standing); see also United States v. $133,420 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 640 (9th Cir. 

2012) (noting that assertion of ownership of currency combined with possession is 

sufficient to establish standing). 

Sanders generally explained the source and amount of his grandmother’s income. 

In addition, he testified that he had lived with his mother or grandmother for years and that 

they paid all of his living expenses. Further, he was seen exiting the rental car after it was 

parked in a hotel parking lot, and the Currency was later seized from the vehicle, which 

had not been moved. We find that such is sufficient to establish standing. See $148,840 

in U.S. Currency, 521 F.3d at 1277 (requiring even “bare assertion” of ownership must be 

construed in the light most favorable to claimant).1

 

Turning to the merits, this court “review[s] the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment de novo and construe[s] all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of 

the nonmoving party.” United States v. McClellan, 44 F.4th 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2022) 

1 The Government avers that much of Sanders’ deposition testimony should not be 

considered given his repeated invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid 

answering relevant questions. However, given that the district court did not strike the 

testimony, even conclusory claims of ownership were entitled to be viewed in the light 

most favorable to the claimant. See 521 F.3d at 1277. 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2290 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 4 of 9
5

(cleaned up). Summary judgment is appropriate only “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). “The relevant inquiry on summary judgment is whether the 

evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is 

so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” United States v. 8.929 Acres 

of Land in Arlington Cnty., 36 F.4th 240, 252 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). In opposing summary judgment, “the nonmoving party must rely on more than 

conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or 

the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Civil forfeiture standards are set forth in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 

2000, Pub. L. No. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202. See 18 U.S.C. § 983. The statute provides that 

the Government must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the property 

sought is subject to forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1), (2); McClellan, 44 F.4th at 205. 

“Property is subject to forfeiture if it either facilitated the transportation, sale, receipt, 

possession, or concealment of a controlled substance, or was intended to do so, or 

constitutes proceeds of drug-trafficking activities.” McClellan, 44 F.4th at 205 (citing 21 

U.S.C. § 881(a)(6)). 

On appeal, Sanders argues that his explanation as to how he obtained the Currency 

created a material issue of fact as to whether the Currency was connected to drug 

trafficking. The Government contends that Sanders’ story is inherently untrustworthy and 

contradicted by the evidence. “When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of 

which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2290 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 5 of 9
6

court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for 

summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). However, proving some 

aspects of Sanders’ story false does not prove that the seized cash is drug proceeds. See 

McClellan, 44 F.4th at 210. 

Here, Sanders testified that the Currency was mostly gifts from his grandmother and 

his mother that he had been given over the years and that he saved. He stated that, prior to 

his grandmother’s death in 2021, he lived on money that his grandmother gave him. 

Approximately six years prior to the hearing, Sanders’ grandmother had received a 

settlement after the death of her husband for over $400,000; she gave Sanders $5000 at that 

time. She continued to give Sanders money on numerous occasions, the largest gift being 

approximately $10,000 in 2018. Sanders claimed that he lived with his grandmother prior 

to 2017 and that, until he had his daughter (around 2017), he had no responsibilities and 

no expenses, so he was able to save the Currency out of his grandmother’s gifts. After 

2017, Sanders lived with his mother, and she paid all his expenses. After his grandmother’s 

death, Sanders’ mother lived on funds from his grandmother and paid Sanders’ expenses 

out of that money. He had also received a $2000 settlement in 2022 for a car accident and 

testified to about 4 years of employment. 

We find that the undisputed evidence does not show that Sanders’ story is untrue or 

unbelievable as a matter of law. The Government points out that, in Sanders’ affidavit of 

indigency filed in 2020, he averred that he had no income, that he had $1500 in monthly 

expenses ($1100 rent and $400 food), and that he lived at a different address than his 

mother. While this evidence certainly raises questions regarding Sanders’ credibility, it is 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2290 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 6 of 9
7

unclear how long he lived at a different address and if his mother paid the monthly expenses 

listed. The Government presents no evidence undermining Sanders’ assertions regarding 

his grandmother’s settlement money. Thus, this court should accept as true that Sanders’ 

grandmother received over $400,000 in approximately 2016 and essentially paid for 

Sanders’ and his mother’s expenses. As such, Sanders could conceivably have saved the 

larger gifts from his grandmother, having no need to pay for his expenses. Because 

Sanders’ testimony is not contradicted by record evidence, a material issue of fact exists 

regarding whether the Currency represented gifts from his grandmother.

The district court held that Sanders refusal to answer questions regarding the money 

given to him by his grandmother and his failure to provide any documentation permitted

summary judgment. However, the court never actually recognized that Sanders alleged 

that his grandmother had a settlement in excess of $400,000. It is not implausible that 

nearly half a million dollars could support three people for six years, especially when 

supplemented by Sanders’ own settlement and earnings. Further, while Sanders invoked 

the Fifth Amendment frequently, he also answered many questions about his grandmother, 

his mother, and his expenses. Given his testimony that his grandmother and mother, over 

the course of approximately six years, paid his expenses and also gave him numerous gifts 

of up to $10,000, Sanders’ alleged source of legitimate income could explain why he had 

$16,761 in cash. 

The court also found Sanders’ claim that he had no living expenses implausible. 

However, viewing his testimony in the light most favorable to Sanders, he was not really 

asserting that he had no living expenses; instead, he claimed that his grandmother and

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2290 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 7 of 9
8

mother paid for his expenses. Moreover, even if Sanders supplemented his gifted income 

with drug dealing, such is insufficient on its own to show that the entire amount of seized 

cash was drug proceeds, as a matter of law. See 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) (cash only subject 

to forfeiture if it was exchanged for drugs, traceable to drug dealings, or intended to be 

used to violate federal drug laws); United States v. Assorted Jewelry, 833 F.3d 13, 15 (1st 

Cir. 2016) (finding evidence that jewelry was found close to controlled substances and that 

claimant pled guilty to drug conspiracy in sufficient to support summary judgment absent 

evidence that jewelry could not have been purchased with legitimate funds); United 

States v. Sum of $185,336.07, 731 F.3d 189, 197 (2d Cir. 2013) (requiring Government to 

provide evidence that all of the money seized from a brokerage account constituted 

proceeds from federal drug crimes). Notably, aside from the fact of Sanders’ prior 

convictions and arrests, the Government presented no evidence regarding the regularity of 

Sanders’ drug dealing or the amounts of money he made from such dealing.

The district court also drew an inference that the possession of unusually large 

amounts of cash is circumstantial evidence of drug trafficking. However, such does not 

create an “inescapable inference of criminal activity.” McLellan, 44 F.4th at 211. 

Especially, here, where Sanders testified that he received the gifted funds in cash and saved 

them and that he did not have a bank account. See Leonard v. Texas, 580 U.S. 1178 (2017) 

(noting that groups frequently targeted for forfeiture are often the same groups “more likely 

to use cash than alternative forms of payment”).

Finally, the district court relied upon the positive dog alerts on the cash, car, and 

Sanders’ possessions; the marijuana shake found in the car and his possessions; Sanders’ 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2290 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 8 of 9
9

criminal history; and adverse inferences from Sanders’ invocation of the Fifth Amendment. 

Certainly, this evidence supported the conclusion that marijuana was present in the car and 

that Sanders has a history of drug trafficking. However, even assuming Sanders has not 

shown an issue of material fact as to whether he was involved with drug trafficking in the 

rental car, such does not create an inescapable conclusion that the Currency (in whole or 

part) was drug proceeds. As discussed above, Sanders provided sworn testimony that the 

Currency was gifts from his grandmother and mother, and he provided details as to where 

his grandmother obtained the money, as well as descriptions and dates of various gifts. The 

Government presented no evidence undermining Sanders’ allegations that his grandmother 

received a substantial monetary settlement and used it, in part, to pay Sanders’ expenses 

and gift him money. While a jury would be free to reject Sanders’ assertions or determine 

that, despite Sanders’ grandmother’s gifts, the Currency was proceeds from drug 

trafficking, it was inappropriate to reject Sanders’ story on summary judgment.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further 

proceedings.

2

 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

2 With regard to the denial of the motion to stay, this portion of the district court’s 

order is also vacated. See Norfolk Southern Ry Co. v. City of Alexandria, 608 F.3d 150, 

161-62 (4th Cir. 2010) (“The customary practice when a case is rendered moot on appeal 

is to vacate the moot aspects of the lower court’s judgment.”). 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2290 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 9 of 9