FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 17, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 21 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 10 -cv -2 02 60 -UU, 0: 02 -cr- 60 20 0- UU-1 VICTOR G. BAXTER, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Vict or Bax te r, a fed eral pri so ne r, ap pe al s pr o s e th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o re le as e a h ol d o n p ro pe rty, file d u nd er Fe d.R .Cri m .P. 41 (g ), an d h ism ot io n t o d is qu al ify the di st ric t ju dg e, fi le d p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 45 5. Fo r th e

reas on s s etforth be lo w, we affi rm . I. In20 02 , a fed eral grandjury is su eda se ve n- co un t s up ers ed in g i nd ic tm en t ag ai ns t Ba xt er, ch arg in g h im with s ev eral dru g a ndfir earm off en se s. Th e in di ct m en t co nt ai ne d afor fei tu re co un t, wh erei n t he go ve rn m en t s ou gh t fo rfei tu re of cas h a ndot he r pr op erty

un de r 21 U.S.C. § 8 53 (a)( 1) , (a)(2 ). In S ep te m be r 20 03 , a jury co nv ic te d B ax te r on two co un ts (di st rib ut in g a ndpo ss es si ng with in te ntto di st rib ut e il le ga l d ru gs ) an d a cqui tt edhi m of t he ot he r fi ve co un ts . In Octo be r 20 03 , th e fo rfei tu re co un t ag ai ns t Ba xt er was di sm is se d, an d t he di st ric t
co urt o rd eredth e g ov ern m en t t o re tu rnth e p ro pe rty tha t h adbe ensei zedfro m hi m . InMarc h 2 01 1, af

te r Bax te r’s di rectcri m in al pro ceed in gs an d h is 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 p ro ceed in gs en de d, h e fi le d am ot io n t o re le as e a h ol d o n p ro pe rty, pu rs ua ntto Fed .R.Cri m .P. 41 (e). Bax te r al le ge d tha t, i n 2 00 3, af te r th e co urt h ad 1
or de redth e return o f hi s s ei zedpro pe rty, the go ve rn m en t p la ceda “ ho ld ” o n h is Fo rdF-1 50 pi ck -up t ru ckin vi ol at io n o f th e co urt’s o rd er, an d t he ho ldwas s ti ll pe nd in g, caus in g d is tre ss to hi m se lf a ndhi s fa m il y .

Rule 41(e) is now codified as Rule 41(g ). See United States v. Howell , 425 F.3d 971, 976 1 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005). 2The di stric t co urt i ss ue d a n o rd er d en y in g a nddi sm is si ng Bax te r’s m ot io n.

The co urt s ta te d t ha t t he m ot io n was un cl ear, t ha t i t was di ffi cu ltto de te rm in e to whi chdo ck et(am on g s ev eral ) th e m ot io n b el on ge d, an d t ha t t he co urt was “ no t
co nv in ced ” th atitha d ju ris di ct io n t o c on si de r th e m ot io n o n t he m eri ts , eve n i f Bax te r’s al le ga ti on s wer e true . Subs eque nt ly, Bax te r m ov edto di squa li fy th e d is tri ctco urt ju dg e, pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 4 55 . Bax te r’s so le reas on fordi squa li fic at io n was th e jud ge ’s ord er de nyin g h is m ot io n t o re le as e th e h ol d o n p ro pe rty. H e co nt en de d, es se nt ia ll y , th at th e jud ge ’s st at em en t re ga rd in g t he lac k o f juri sd ic ti on co ns ti tu te d e vi de nc e o f bi as . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d B ax te r’s m ot io n o n t he m eri ts . II. W e rev ie w de no vo qu es ti on s co nc ern in g adi st ric t co urt’s s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on an d m ay

affi rm “ fo r an y reas onsupp orte d b y

th e rec or d, ev enif n ot rel ie d upo n b y

th e d is tri ctco urt.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Al -Ari an , 51 4 F .3d11 84 , 11 89 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Rul e 4 1( g) pro vi de s, i n p art : “ A per so n ag gr ie ve d b y

anun lawfu l s earc h a ndsei zu re o f pr op ert y or b y th e d ep riv at io n o f pr op erty m ay m ov e fo r th e p ro pe rty’ s re tu rn .” Fed .R.Cri m .P. 41 (g ). Whe n a n
own er “ in vo ke s R

ul e 4 1( g) aft er the clo se of a ll cri m in al pro ceed in gs , th e co urt tre at s t he m ot io n fo r return o f pr op ert y as aciv il act io n i n e qu it y .” Uni te d Sta te s 3v. Mac ha do , 46 5 F .3d13 01 , 13 07 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) , ov erru le d

on othe r gro un ds , as rec ogni ze d i n Un it ed

St at es v. Lo

pe z , 56 2 F .3d13 09 , 13 11 -1 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . Con se qu en tl y , su ch Ru le 41 (g ) act io ns are s ub ject t o th e si x- y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns fou ndin 28 U.S.C. § 2 40 1( a). Id

. ; se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 40 1( a) (“ [E]very ci vi l ac ti onco m m en cedag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s s ha ll be ba rredun le ss th e co m

pl ai ntis fil edwithi n s ix y ears aft er the rig htof a ct io n fi rs t
accrue s.”)
. Inth is cas e, th e fo rfei tu re al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t Ba xt er were di sm is se d i n Octo be r 20 03 , andhe ass ert edinhi s R ul e 4 1( g) m ot io n t ha t t he go ve rn m en t il le ga ll y pl aceda ho ldon hi s v eh ic le in 20 03 . Yet h e wai te d m or e th ansi x years,
un ti l 2 01 1, b efo re fi li ng th e Ru le 41 (g ) m ot io n, re nd eri ng th e m ot io n u nt im el y . Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 40 1( a); Mac ha do , 46 5 F .3dat 1 30 7 (s ta ti ng th atth e § 24 01 (a) li m it at io ns pe rio d b eg anto runfro m th e fi na l o rd er o f fo rfei tu re). Whil e th e go ve rn m en t h adno t re li edon th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns as ade fen se , th e li m it at io ns pe rio d i n § 24 01 (a) i s ju ris di ct io na l an d c an no t b e wai ve d. Se e Ctr. f or Bio lo gi ca l Dive rs it y v. Hami lt on , 45 3 F .3d13 31 , 13 34 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (“ Unl ik e an ord in ary st atut e o f li m it at io ns , § 2 40 1( a) i s a ju ris di ct io na l co nd it io n a tt ach edto th e go ve rn m en t’s wai ve r of

so ve rei gn im

m un it y .” (quo ta ti on om it te d) ). As a re su lt , th e d is tri ctco urt h adno juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er Ba xt er’s Ru le 41 (g ) m ot io n a nd
4co rrec tl y

di sm is se d i t fo r la ck

th ereo f. Se e Ma ch ado , 46 5 F .3dat 1 30 7 (s ta ti ng th atth e d efen dant ’s Rul e 4 1( g) m ot io n, fi le d a fte r th e si x- y ear l im it at io ns pe rio d
ex pi red , “ ha d b een ren de redleg al ly unp al at ab le by the pa ss ag e o f ti m e.”). Bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt h adno juri sd ic ti on to he ar Ba xt er’s m ot io n t o rel eas e th e h ol d o n p ro pe rty, the re were no pro ceed in gs pe nd in g b efo re the co urt fro m whi ch th e jud ge co ul d h av e d is qu al ifi edhe rs el f. Acco rd in gl y , th e co urt al so la ck edjuri sd ic ti on ov er Ba xt er’s m ot io n fo r di squa li fic at io n. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Els o , 57 1 F .3d11 63 , 11 65 -6 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (ho ld in g t ha t t he di st ric t co urt la ck edjuri sd ic ti on ov er a m ot io n fo r recu sa l b ecau se no pro ceed in gs were p en di ng be fo re the co urt atth e ti m e th e rec us al m ot io n was fil ed ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 0 S .Ct. 20 75 (20 10 ). Ther efo re, we aff irm. AFFIRMED.

5