### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ar c h 27, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15297 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 5 2 9 - C R - UWC - HG D U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J E R R Y L I N D S A Y A R T I S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( M ar c h 27, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Je rry L i nd sa y A rt i s, a f

eder al pri soner procee di ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ctArtis also sought the return of firea rms, photographs, and a

1993 Nissan 300ZX and 1 re qu e ste d th at th eg ov e rnment p ay him fo r t hevalueof

thre epa rc e ls o f re al prop e rt

y also alle g e dly se ize d. Th eg ov e rnment re sp on de d th at th eStateof Al a bama had s e ize d th efire arm s and photographs, that the N issan 300ZX had be en re lease d to a lien holder, a nd that therewas no evidenc e that any

real property

had been seized. On appe al, Artis does not address the denial of his moti on reg ardingthose piece s of property . Acc ording ly , he has w aived a ny claims he may have had reg ardingthem. J ohnson Enters. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. F PLGroup, Inc., 162 F .3d 1290, 1308 n.43 (11th Cir. 1998) (“ Claims not presented to the cour t of appe als areconsidere d waived.” ); Rowe v. Schre iber, 139 F .3d 1381, 1382 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998) (“ Be causeof the a bs e nc eof argument, theiss ue s . . . havebe e n a ba ndon e d a nd wi ll n ot b ec on side re d in thi s appeal.”); Cont’l Technic al Servs., Inc. v. Rockwe ll Int’l Corp., 927 F.2d 1198, 1199 (11th Cir. 19 91 ) ( “ An

argument n ot m a deis w aive d. ” ); Ha rris v . Pl a sti c s Mf

g . Co ., 61 7 F .2 d 4 38 , 4 40 (5 th Cir. 1980) (holdingthat beca use the a ppellants failed to discuss a n issue, “[a]ny

contention that the trial cour

t erre d [on that issue] is there foreabandone d”). 2 c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f

h is m o tio n f

o rth e r e tu rn o f

p r o p e r ty u n d e rF e d . R . C r im . P . 4 1 ( g ) . T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed the m ot i on because i tw as un t i m el y f i l ed. W e r evi ew que s t i ons of

l a w de a l i ng w i th a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of a m ot i on f

orr e tur n of p r o p e r ty d e n o v o . U n ite d S ta te s v . H o w e ll, 4 2 5 F .3 d 9 7 1 , 9 7 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs f orc l e a re rr or . I d. I. I n h is J u n e 2 6 , 2 0 0 3 m o tio n , A r tis s o u g h t th e r e tu rn o f ap p r o x im a te ly $10, 000 t a ke n f

r om hi s B i r m i ngha m , A l a ba m a r e s i de nc e a nd a1989 F or d M us t a ng G T , both s e i z e d on M a y 25, 1994. I n r e s pons e , the gove rnm e nts t a t e d tha tthe 1 D rug E nf

or c e m e ntA ge nc y ( D E A ) ha d a dm i ni s tr a t i ve l y f or f e i t e d the c a s h on A u g u st1 9 , 1 9 9 4 an d th e v eh i cl e o n S ep t em b er 2 3 , 1 9 9 4 . T h e g o v ern m en tal so s t a t e d tha tnot i c e ha d be e n publ i s he d w e e kl y f orthr e e w e e ks i n U S A T oda y a ndWatkin s re fersto F e d. R. C rim. P . 4 1( e ), whic h p revious ly c ontaine d what is no w R ule 2 41(g). See H owell, 425 F.3d a t 976 n.3. 3 thatno t i ce had b ee n sentby ce rt i fi ed m ai l bo th t o A rt i s a tst at e j ai l w here he w as i ncar ce ra t ed and t o h i s B i rm i ng ham re si dence. R ul e 41( g) pr ovi de s tha t“ [ a ] pe r s on a ggr i e ve d by a n unl a w f ul s e a r c h a nd se izu re o f p ro p er ty o r b y th e d ep riv atio n o f p ro p er ty m ay m o v e f o r th e p ro p er ty’s r e tu rn .” F e d . R . C r im . P . 4 1 ( g ) . W e h a v e h e ld , h o w e v e r , th a t “[ w ]h e n p r o p e r ty is re t ai ned p ursuantt o ci vi l forf ei ture, i nst ea d o f f

or use a s e vi dence, a [ R ul e 41(g)] 2 m ot i on i s notavai l abl e. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. W atki ns, 12 0 F . 3d 25 4, 25 5 (11 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ); ac co rd U n it ed S tates v . E u b an k s, 1 6 9 F .3 d 6 7 2 , 6 7 4 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) ( “A [ R u le 4 1 ( g ) ] m o tio n is u n a v a ilab le . . . w h e n p r o p e r ty is r e ta in e d p u r s u a n t to c iv il f or f e i tur e i ns t e a d of

f orus e a s e vi de nc e . ” ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a s tr o, 883 F . 2d 1018, 1020 ( 11th C i r . 1989) ( “ D e f e nda ntc a nnotus e the c r i m i na l pr oc e dur e de vi c e of [ R ul e 41( g) ] t o s e e k r e l i e f f r om a c i vi l f

or f e i tur e pr oc e e di ng. ” ) . “ W he n the g o v e rn m e n t, in its w r itte n r e s p o n s e to a [ R u le 4 1 ( g ) ] m o tio n , a d m its its p o s itio n is tha t , by f or f e i tur e , the m ova ntha s a l r e a dy pe r m a ne nt l y l os thi s r i ghtt o the pe r t i ne ntpr ope r ty , the gove rnm e nt ’ s j udi c i a l a dm i s s i on i s e nough t o de pr i ve the c our tof the a uthor i ty t o gr a ntthe [ R ul e 41( g) ] m ot i on. ” W a tki ns , 120 F . 3d a t255. T hati s e xact l y w hathapp ened i n thi s c as e. A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourt corr ec t l y deni ed A rt i s’ m ot i on for the re turn o f property i nsofaras i tsoug htre l i efThe c ourt considered but did not apply the five- year

limit ations period pre scribed by 18 3 U.S.C. § 983(e)(3) , which applies to motions to set aside forf eiture brought under 18 U.S.C. § 4 un der R ul e 41(g). II. W h e r e p r o p e r ty h a s b e e n f o r f e ite d to th e g o v e rn m e n t a n d th e r e f o r e R u le 4 1 ( g ) is n o t a v a ilab le , a f e d e r a l c o u r t h a s d is c r e tio n to e x e r c is e e q u itab le j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe a ge nc y f or f e i tur e de c i s i on “ w he n the pe t i t i one r ’ s c onduc ta nd the m er i t s of hi s pet i t i on re qu i re j ud i ci al re vi ew t o p re ventm ani fe sti nj ust i ce . ” E u b a n k s , 1 6 9 F .3 d a t 6 7 4 ; s e e a ls o I n r e $ 6 7 ,4 7 0 .0 0 , 9 0 1 F .2 d 1 5 4 0 , 1 5 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . I n th a t in s ta n c e , a c o u r t m a y e x e r c is e ju r is d ic tio n o v e r“ th e is s u e . . . [of] w hether the go vernm enthas a ct ed w rong ful l y i n t aki ng the prop erty. ” W a tki ns , 120 F . 3d a t255–256. T he gove rnm e nt ’ s t a ki ng of pr ope r ty w i thoutdue p r o c e s s is w r o n g f

u l, s e e id . a t 2 5 6 , a n d th a t is w h a t A r tis a lle g e s o c c u rr e d in th is ca se . A rt i s a rgued i n h i s m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm entbefore the di stri ctcourt tha tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s a tt e m pt s a tnot i c e w e r e c ons t i tut i ona l l y de f i c i e nt , a nd th erefo re h e w as d ep ri v ed o f d u e p ro cess. In hi s r eportand recom m endat i on , the m agi stra t e j ud ge det erm i ned t hateven i f afa cti ss ue exi st ed re gardi ng the adequacy of the no t i ce t o A rt i s, hi s m ot i on w as unt i m e l y . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge s ua s pont e appl i e d the s i x- y e a rs t a tut e of lim ita tio n s c o n ta in e d in 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 0 1 ( a ) , w h ic h p r o v id e s th a t “e v e ry c iv il 3983(e) (1), be causethe forf eiture in this caseoccur

red prior to the eff

ective date of § 983. See Civil Asset ForfeitureReform Ac t of 2000, Pub. L . No. 106-185, § 21, 114 Stat. 202, 225 (2000). B eca

use application of either statute of limit ations would bar this ca se, weexpress no o p i n i o no nth ath o l di n g. 5 a c tio n c o m m e n c e d a g a in s t th e U n ite d S ta te s s h a ll b e b a rr e d u n le s s th e c o m p la in t is f i l e d w i thi n s i x y e a r s a f

t e rthe r i ghtof

a c t i on f i r s ta c c rue s . ” T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge foun d thatA rt i s’ cause of a ct i on ac crued o n Jul y 27, 19 94 , the dat e of the fi nal publ i c a t i on of

not i c e i n U S A T oda y . B e c a us e A r t i s di d notf i l e hi s m ot i on f

orthe re turn o f property unt i l near l y ni ne ye ar s l at er , the m agi stra t e j ud ge concl ud ed that A rt i s’ m o t i o n fo r retu rn o f p ro p erty w as t i m e-b arred b y § 2 4 0 1 (a). A cco rd i n g l y, the m a gi s tr a t e j udge r e c om m e nde d de ni a l of A r t i s ’ m ot i on f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nt o n h is c la im f

o rr e tu rn o f

p r o p e r ty . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a d o p te d th e m a g is tr a te j udge ’ s r e por ta nd r e c om m e nda t i on on J ul y 19, 2005. O n ap p e a l, A r tis c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in f in d in g th a t h is c a us e of a c t i on a c c rue d on the da t e of f i na l publ i c a t i on of

not i c e f orpurpos e s of ap p ly in g th e § 2 4 0 1 ( a ) s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s b e c a u s e th e g o v e rn m e n t f a ile d to p r o v id e e v id e n c e th a t th e J u ly 2 7 , 1 9 9 4 e d itio n o f U S A T o d a y w a s a v a ilab le to h im i n j ai l . A rt i s a l so ar gu es thatthere i s no evi dence thathe w as everaw ar e of, or that h e sh o u l d h av e k n o w n o f, th e ad m i n i strat i v e d ecl arat i o n s o f fo rfei tu re o f th e cash a n d th e M u s ta n g G T . H e u r g e s u s to r e m a n d h is c a s e f o rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t to d et erm i n e w h en , i f ev er, A rt i s sh o u l d h av e k n o w n o f th e fo rfei tu res.6

A s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons r e qui r i ng tha ta s ui ta ga i ns tthe gove rnm e ntbe br oughtw i thi n a c e r t a i n pe r i od of t i m e i s a t e r m of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s ’ w a i ve rof s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity . C o m p a g n o n i v . U n ite d S ta te s , 1 7 3 F .3 d 1 3 6 9 , 1 3 7 0 n .3 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( “ [ I ] f

a s t a tu t e a u th o r i z i n g s u i t s a g a i n s tth e U n i t e d St a t e s l i mi t s th e t i me pe r i od i n w hi c h s uc h s ui t s m a y be br ought , the U ni t e d S t a t e s r e t a i ns i t s s ove r e i gn i m m un i ty a s t o any sui t s broug htou t si de of thatt i m e per i od . ”) ; M ut . A ss urance, Inc. v. U ni t ed S t at es , 56 F . 3d 13 53 , 13 55 (11t h C i r. 19 95 ); V i nt i l l a v. U ni t ed S t at es , 93 1 F . 2d 14 44 , 14 46 (11t h C i r. 19 91 ). “ A courtdo es no thave subj ec t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n o v e ra s u it a g a in s t th e U n ite d S ta te s th a t is b a rr e d b y th e s ta tu te o f l i m i t at i o n s. ” C o m p ag n o n i , 1 7 3 F . 3 d at1 3 7 0 n . 3 . A cco rd i n g l y, i f A rt i s’ cau se o f a c tio n ( in s o f

a ra s it s e e k s e q u itab le r e lie f f r o m th e D E A ’s f

o r f e itu r e o f h is pr ope r ty ) a c c rue d m or e tha n s i x y e a r s be f or e he f i l e d hi s m ot i on on J une 26, 2003, the n w e m us ta f

f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on on the ba s i s tha tthe c o u r t la c k e d ju r is d ic tio n to e n te r ta in it. A l though no publ i s he d opi ni on of thi s C our ta ddr e s s e s thi s i s s ue , tw o of our s is te rc ir c u its h a v e a d d r e s s e d it. I n P o la n c o v . D E A , th e S e c o n d C ir c u it h e ld th a t a de f e nda nt ’ s c l a i m f

ori na de qua t e not i c e of

a c i vi l f or f e i tur e pr oc e e di ng i ni t i a t e d by the gove rnm e ntw oul d a c c rue unde r§ 2401( a ) a tthe e a r l i e rof ( 1) the c l os e of forf ei ture procee di ng s or ( 2) i f no forfei ture procee di ng s had begu n, w hen t he fi ve-7

ye arst atut e of l i m i t at i on s f or the go vernm entt o i ni t i at e f orfe i ture procee di ng s had ru n . 1 5 8 F .3 d 6 4 7 , 6 5 4 ( 2 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . I n U n ite d S ta te s v . M in o r , th e F o u r th C i rcu i th el d th ata d efen d an t ’ s cl ai m accru ed atth e earl i er o f (1 ) w h en h e fi rst beca m e a w ar e of the forf ei ture or ( 2) w hen h e r ea sonabl y c ou l d h ave been e x p e c te d to m a k e a n in q u iry th a t w o u ld h a v e m a d e h im a w a r e o f th e f o r f e itu r e . 22 8 F . 3d 35 2, 35 9 (4th C i r. 20 00 ). W e n eed n o td et erm i n e w h i ch o f th ese ru l es i s m o re so u n d i n th i s case be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of A r t i s ’ m ot i on f

orunt i m e l i ne s s i s due t o be a f f i r m e d unde re i the rof

the m . U nde rthe P ol a nc o rul e , A r t i s ’ c a us e of a c t i on a c c ru e d w ith r e s p e c t to th e c a s h a n d th e v e h ic le a t th e tim e o f th e f o r f e itu r e s in 1994 a nd the s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons r a n s i x y e a r s l a t e ri n 2000, thr e e y e a r s be f or e he f i l e d hi s m ot i on. U nde rthe M i norrul e , w e c onc l ude tha tA r t i s , w ho w a s a w a r e of th e s e iz u r e o f

h is p r o p e r ty in M a y 1 9 9 4 , r e a s o n a b ly c o u ld h a v e m a d e a n in q u iry to de t e r m i ne w he the rhi s pr ope r ty ha d be e n f or f e i t e d m or e tha n s i x y e a r s be f or e f i l i ng hi s m ot i on i n J une 2003. I n f a c t , the r e i s e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d tha tA r t i s di d m a ke s uc h a n i nqui ry : A r t i s f i l e d w i th hi s i ni t i a l m ot i on tw o l e tt e r s da t e d M a r c h 6, 1996 addres se d t o federa l offi ci al s i n M on t go m ery, A l abam a i n w hi ch he request ed i nf or m a t i on on the w he r e a bout s of hi s pr ope r ty . T ha te vi de nc e s uppor t s our c o n c lu s io n th a t A r tis w a s a w a r e th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d in f o r m a tio n r e g a r d in g h is8

p r o p e r ty a n d th a t h e r e a s o n a b ly c o u ld h a v e f o llo w e d u p o n th e m a tte ro rf ile d h is m ot i on s oon a f

t e rw a r ds . B e c a us e A r t i s f a i l e d t o f i l e hi s m ot i on f

orr e turn of prop erty w i thi n si x yea rs of hi s c ause of ac t i on ac crui ng , the di stri ctcourtw as w i tho utsubj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on t o g ra nthi m equi t abl e r el i ef fr om the forf

ei tures i n thi s c as e. AF F I RME D.