IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Case No. 3:17-CV-401 

 Plaintiff, : Judge Thomas M. Rose 

 v. : 

NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED : 

EIGHTY DOLLARS IN UNITED STATES 

CURRENCY ($9,580.00), et al., : 

 Defendants. : 

SECOND DECREE OF FORFEITURE 

[ ] Jury verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by Jury. 

The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict. 

[ ] Decision by Court. The action came to trial or hearing before the Court. 

The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered. 

[x ] Decision by Court. This action was decided without a trial or hearing. 

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of the United States for a second decree 

of forfeiture against the following property (“defendant firearms”): 

1. A Sun City Machinery, Model Stevens 320, 12-Gauge Shotgun, Serial Number 

130884E (Defendant 3); 

2. A Zastava C.A.I., Model PAP M92PV, 7.62 Caliber Rifle, Serial Number 

M92PV022161, with Magazine (Defendant 4); 

3. A Glock, Model 23, 40 Caliber Pistol, Serial Number MMG197, with Magazine 

(Defendant 5); and 

4. A Glock Model 27, 40 Caliber Pistol, Serial Number RWL367, with Magazine 

(Defendant 6). 

The United States filed a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture on November 22, 2017. 
2 

(Doc. 1.) Task Force Officer Frederick D. Zollers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

verified the Complaint, which sets forth the United States’ basis for forfeiting the defendants. 

(Id.) 

The United States brought this civil forfeiture action in rem against the defendant firearms 

to enforce the provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(11), alleging that the defendant firearms were 

used or intended to be used to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or 

concealment of property described in 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(1) (controlled substances). (Id.) 

A Warrant of Arrest in Rem, issued by the Court on November 29, 2017, directed the 

United States Marshals Service (“USMS”), any duly authorized law enforcement officer, or their 

delegate(s) to arrest the defendant firearms. (Doc. 3.) In accordance with the Warrant of 

Arrest in Rem, the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested the defendant firearms, bringing them 

within the jurisdiction of the Court. (Docs. 8-11.) 

Pursuant to Rule G(4)(b)(i) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims 

and Asset Forfeiture Actions (“Supplemental Rules”), “[t]he government must send notice of the 

action with a copy of the complaint to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential 

claimant on the facts known to the government before the end of the time for filing a claim under 

Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B).” “The notice must be sent by means reasonably calculated to reach the 

potential claimant.” Supplemental Rule G(4)(b)(iii)(A). In this case, the United States has 

provided direct notice of this action with a copy of the complaint to all known potential claimants. 

On December 1, 2017, the United States sent direct notice and a copy of the complaint by 

certified mail to potential claimant Jay Bakhshi, through his attorney Michael T. Columbus, who 

represented the potential claimant in a related administrative proceeding. (Doc. 13, Exhibit A.) 
3 

On December 4, 2017, the USMS personally served direct notice of this civil forfeiture 

action and a copy of the complaint on potential claimant Alexander Okwuoha at the Warren 

Correctional Institute. (Id., Exhibit B.) 

On February 12, 2018, the United States sent direct notice and a copy of the complaint by 

FedEx to potential claimant Eric Malcolm, through his attorney Aaron G. Durden, who 

represented the potential claimant in a related criminal case. (Id., Exhibit C.) 

Pursuant to Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C) of the Supplemental Rules, the United States is required 

to publish notice in a manner reasonably calculated to notify potential claimants of the civil 

forfeiture action on an official internet government forfeiture site for at least 30 consecutive days. 

The United States posted notice of this civil forfeiture action on the official internet 

government forfeiture site, (www.forfeiture.gov), beginning on November 30, 2017, for 30 

consecutive days. (Doc. 12.) 

Jay Bakhshi filed a timely Claim (Doc. 6) and Answer (Doc. 7) in this civil forfeiture 

action, asserting an interest in the defendant firearms. On June 21, 2018, the United States met 

with Mr. Bakhshi and counsel to allow the claimant to inspect the defendant firearms. Upon 

inspection, Mr. Bakhshi realized that the defendant firearms were not the same ones that had been 

stolen from him during a home burglary and that he was not the owner of the defendant firearms. 

On June 28, 2018, Jay Bakhshi dismissed his Claim to the defendant firearms with 

prejudice. (Doc. 19.) 

No other person or entity has filed a claim to the defendant firearms or an answer to the 

complaint relating to the defendant firearms, and the time to do so has expired. 

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 
4 

1. All right, title, and interest in the defendant firearms is CONDEMNED and 

FORFEITED to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(11) because the defendant 

firearms were used or intended to be used to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, 

or concealment of property described in 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(1) (controlled substances); 

2. All right, title, and interest in the defendant firearms is vested in the United States, 

and no right, title, or interest shall exist in any other person or entity; 

3. The United States or an authorized agent thereof shall dispose of the defendant 

firearms in accordance with the law; 

4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Order; and 

5. This case is terminated on the docket of this Court. 

August 22, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

____________________________________ 

THOMAS M. ROSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE