FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 13, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 07- 10626 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 0 8 7 - C R - T - 1 6 - MAP 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 I Z H A K C O H E N , a .k .a . Z u k a , e tc ., D e f e n d a n t, L I M O R T E V E T , M o v 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 13, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

L im o rT e v e t ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h e rth ir d - p a r ty c la im to $426, 900 s ubj e c tt o f

or f e i tur e a s a r e s ul tof

I z ha k C ohe n’ s c onvi c t i on f or c o n s p i r a c y t o p o s s e s s w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e e c s t a s y , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. §§ 846 a nd 841( a ) ( 1) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( C ) . W e a ddr e s s T e ve t ’ s i s s ue s on appe a l i n turn. I. T e ve tf i r s ta s s e r t s the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n a dm i tt i ng the tr a ns c r i ptof the p r e lim in a ry f

o r f e itu r e h e a r in g , s p e c if

ic a lly th e te s tim o n y o f

a ja ilh o u s e in f

o r m a n t, be c a us e the i nf

or m a ntdi d notappe a ra the ra nc i l l a ry he a r i ng a nd, thus , w a s not s u b je c t to c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n . C itin g th e th r e e - p a r t b a la n c in g te s t a r tic u la te d in M athe w s v . E ldr i dge , 96 S . C t . 89 3 (19 76 ), T evetcont ends the di stri ctcourt v i o l at ed h er ri g h tt o d u e p ro cess an d sh o u l d h av e em p l o yed d i fferen tp ro ced u res, spec i fi ca l l y by ( 1) al l ow i ng her t o cross -e xam i ne the i nform antatthe prel i m i nary he a r i ng, ( 2) a l l ow i ng he rt o c r os s - e xa m i ne the i nf or m a nta tthe a nc i l l a ry he a r i ng, or ( 3 ) r e f u s in g to a d m it th e in f

o r m a n t’s p r io rte s tim o n y . I n M a th e ws , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t s e t f o r th th r e e f

a c to r s to b e c o n s id e r e d in de t e r m i ni ng w he the rpr oc e dur e s i n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e e di ngs c om por tw i th due p r o c e s s . 9 6 S . C t. a t 9 0 3 . T h e s e f a c to r s in c lu d e : ( 1 ) “th e p r iv a te in te r e s t th a t w ill be af fe ct ed by the offi ci al ac t i on ; ” ( 2) “ the ri sk of an erroneou s depri vat i on of such i nt er es tthrou gh the procedures use d, and t he prob abl e val ue, i f a ny, of addi t i on al3

ors ubs t i tut e pr oc e dur a l s a f e gua r ds ; ” a nd ( 3) “ the G ove rnm e nt ’ s i nt e r e s t , i nc l udi ng the funct i on i nv ol ved and the fi sc al and adm i ni stra t i ve bu rdens thatthe addi t i on al or subst i tut e procedural re qu i re m entw ou l d ent ai l . ” Id . W e ha ve appl i e d the M a th e ws a na l y s i s t o de t e r m i ne w he the rpr oc e dur e s us e d i n c i vi l pr oc e e di ngs s a tis f y d u e p r o c e s s . See U

ni t e d Stat e s v . W

at t l e ton , 29 6 F . 3d 11 84 , 11 98 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). P ur s ua ntt o 21 U . S . C . § 853( k) , “ [ e ] xc e pta s pr ovi de d i n s ubs e c t i on ( n) of th is s e c tio n , n o p a r ty c la im in g a n in te r e s t in p r o p e r ty s u b je c t to f o r f e itu r e . . . m a y . . . i nt e r ve ne i n a tr i a l orappe a l of a c r i m i na l c a s e i nvol vi ng the f or f e i tur e of s uc h pr ope r ty unde rthi s s e c t i on. ” U nde r21 U . S . C . § 853( n) ( 5) , a tthe he a r i ng on p e titio n e r ’s c la im to th e f o r f e ite d p r o p e r ty , the pet i t i on erm ay t es t i fy and p re se ntevi dence and w i tness es on [her ] o w n b e h a lf

, a n d c r o s s - e x a m in e w itn e s s e s w h o ap p e a ra t th e h e a r in g . T he U ni t e d S t a t e s m a y pr e s e nte vi de nc e a nd w i tne s s e s i n r e butt a l a nd i n d ef ense of i t s c l ai m t o the prop erty a nd cr oss- exam i ne w i tness es w ho appear a tthe heari ng . In addi t i on t o t es t i m on y a nd evi dence pr e s e nt e d a tthe he a r i ng, the c our ts ha l l c ons i de rthe r e l e va ntpor t i ons of the r e c or d of

the c r i m i na l c a s e w hi c h r e s ul t e d i n the or de rof forf ei ture. T he t e s t i m ony of

the j a i l hous e i nf

or m a nta nd othe rw i tne s s e s a tthe pr e l i m i na ry f

or f e i tur e he a r i ng w a s a r e l e va nta nd ne c e s s a ry pa r tof the r e c or d i n the u n d e r ly in g c r im in a l c a s e a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in c o n s id e r in g it p u r s u a n t to 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 3 ( n ) ( 5 ) . Se e T am pa B ay Shi

pbui ldi ng &4

R e pai rC o. v . C e darShi

ppi ng C o. , 320 F . 3d 1213, 1216 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( s t a t i ng w e r e v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e v id e n tia ry ru lin g s f o ra n a b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n ) . Im po rt ant l y, T evetdo es no tar gu e that§ 8 53 i t se l f i s uncon st i tut i on al . R ather, T e ve ta r gue s tha t§ 853 s houl d be i nt e rpr e t e d t o e xt e nd he rr i ghtt o c r os s - e xa m i ne w i tne s s e s a tthe a nc i l l a ry he a r i ng t o a l l a dve r s e e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d thr oughoutthe course of the forf

ei ture procee di ng s. T he re cord i nd i ca t es , ho w ever , thatT evet w as on l y deni ed the op po rtun i ty t o cross -e xam i ne the j ai l ho use i nform anti nsofar a s s he w a s s t a tut or i l y ba rr e d f r om i nt e r ve ni ng i n the pr e l i m i na ry f or f e i tur e he a r i ng p u r s u a n t to 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 3 ( k ) . U n d e r§ 8 5 3 ( n ) , T e v e t h a d th e o p p o r tu n ity to a ddr e s s the s e c i r c um s t a nc e s a tthe a nc i l l a ry he a r i ng on he rc l a i m by pr e s e nt i ng the j ai l ho use i nform antas a w i tness . T evetchose nott o avai l hers el f of that oppor tuni ty . W he n w e i ghe d a ga i ns tthe G ove rnm e nt ’ s i nt e r e s ti n e nf or c i ng cr i m i nal forf

ei ture penal t i es , T evethas f ai l ed t o d em on stra t e thatthe di stri ct co u rt ’ s ap p l i cat i o n o f th e p ro ced u res i n 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 5 3 v i o l at ed h er d u e p ro cess r ig h ts . Se e M

a th e ws , 9 6 S . C t. a t 9 0 3 . II. T e ve tne xta s s e r t s s he ha d a s upe r i or“ l e ga l r i ght , t i t l e , ori nt e r e s t ” i n the m on ey , no t i ng she w as the on l y per son t o ass erta c l ai m as t o the m on ey i n the sa fe de pos i tbox a nd a s s e r t i ng s he w a s the onl y pe r s on w ho ha d a c c e s s t o the box,5

w hi ch w as re gi st er ed t o h erpare nt s. S he further c on t ends the di stri ctcourt er ro n eo u sly im p o se d a h eig h ten ed stan d ar d o f p ro o f, re q u irin g h erto es tab li sh “a ne xus ” be tw e e n he rc onduc ta nd the m one y i n or de rt o de t e r m i ne w he the rthe m o n e y b e lo n g e d to h e r . C o h e n w a s c o n v ic te d o f c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te e c s t a s y , 2 1 U . S. C. § § 8 4 6 a n d 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C) . Pu r s u a n tt o 2 1 U . S. C. § 8 5 3 ( a ) , [ a ]n y p e r s o n c o n v ic te d o f a v io la tio n o f

th is s u b c h ap te r. . . p u n is h a b le by i m pri sonm entfor m ore than o ne ye arshal l forf ei tt o the U ni t ed S t a t e s , i rr e s p e c t i v e o f

a n y p r o v i s i o n o f

S t a t e l a w– ( 1) a ny pr ope r ty c ons t i tut i ng, orde r i ve d f r om , a ny pr oc e e ds the pe r s on obt a i ne d, di r e c t l y ori ndi r e c t l y , a s the r e s ul tof s uc h vi ol a t i on; ( 2) a ny of

the pe r s on' s pr ope r ty us e d, ori nt e nde d t o be us e d, i n a ny m anner or part , t o com m i t , or t o fac i l i t at e the com m i ss i on of, such vi ol a t i on. S ec t i on 85 3(n)(6) provi des tw o w ay s i n w hi ch thi rd-par ty c l ai m ant s c an e s tab lis h th e irin te r e s t in f o r f e ite d p r o p e r ty . U

ni t e d Stat e s v . Sor e i de , 461 F . 3d 1 3 5 1 , 1 3 5 4 - 5 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . U n d e rth is s e c tio n , [i ] f, af t erthe heari ng [on t he thi rd-par ty c l ai m ant ’ s pet i t i on ] , the court de t e r m i ne s tha tthe pe t i t i one rha s e s t a bl i s he d by a pr e ponde r a nc e of th e e v id e n c e th a t– ( A ) the pe t i t i one rha s a l e ga l r i ght , t i t l e , ori nt e r e s ti n the pr ope r ty , a nd s u c h r ig h t, title , o rin te r e s t r e n d e r s th e o r d e ro f f o r f e itu r e in v a lid in w hol e ori n pa r tbe c a us e the r i ght , t i t l e , ori nt e r e s tw a s ve s t e d i n theAlthough Gi lbert c on side rs18 U. S.C. § 1 96 3( l) , th eRI CO fo rf e itureprov isi on , this 1 prov isi on is s ub sta nti ally identi c al to § 8 53 (n) a

nd our a nalysis of on eprov isi on

is e qu ally applicableto the other. See Gi lbert , 244 F.3d at 906 n.47, 907. 6 pet i t i on erra ther than t he defendantor w as superi or t o any ri gh t , t i t l e, o rin te r e s t o f

th e d e f e n d a n t a t th e tim e o f

th e c o m m is s io n o f

th e a c ts w h ic h g a v e r is e to th e f o r f e itu r e o f th e p r o p e r ty u n d e rth is s e c tio n ;

. . . th e c o u r t s h a ll a m e n d th e o r d e ro f f o r f e itu r e in a c c o r d a n c e w ith its de t e r m i na t i on. Id . § 8 53 (n)( 6). O nce thi s proce edi ng concl ud es , the di stri ctcourtent er s afi nal order of forf

ei ture. F ed. R . C ri m . P . 32 . 2(c) (2). A l tho ug h p roce edi ng s und er § 8 53 (n) a ri se i n the cont extof a c ri m i nal forf ei ture, anci l l ary f

orfe i ture p r o c e e d in g s a r e c iv il p r o c e e d in g s f o rth e p u rp o s e s o f

ap p e lla te r e v ie w . See U ni t ed S ta t es v. G i lb ert , 24 4 F . 3d 88 8, 90 7 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ). 1 T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notus e a he i ght e ne d s t a nda r d of pr oof , a nd di d not cl earl y err i n fi n d i n g T ev etfai l ed t o sat i sfy h er b u rd en t o est ab l i sh b y a pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e tha ts he ha d a s upe r i ori nt e r e s ti n the $426, 900 s u b je c t to f o r f e itu r e . Se e U

ni t e d Stat e s v . W

atki ns , 32 0 F . 3d 12 79 , 12 81 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( statin g in a th ird -p ar ty fo rf eitu re ca se , w e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s f i n d i n g s o f

f a c tf o rc l e a re rr o r , a n d th e c o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w de no vo ). T ev et’s e vi de nc e i n s uppor tof

he rc l a i m c ons i s t e d of

the c onc l us ory s t a t e m e nttha tthe m o n e y b e lo n g e d to h e ra n d h e rp a r e n ts , a n d h a n d w r itte n “le d g e r s ” th a t f a ile d to7

c o rr o b o r a te h e ra s s e r tio n s . T e v e t m a d e a n u m b e ro f in c o n s is te n t s ta te m e n ts c o n c e rn in g th e a m o u n t o f m o n e y k e p t in th e s a f

e d e p o s it b o x e s a n d its s o u r c e s . T ev etd i d n o tsu b m i tan y d o cu m en t s t o su p p o rth er asserti o n s, su ch as h er p aren t s’ w i l l , the pow e rof

a tt orne y , t a x r e c or ds , orothe rbus i ne s s r e c or ds . T e ve ta l s o m a de i ncon si st entst at em ent s c on ce rni ng the nu m ber of s af e deposi tbo xes. M oreover, the de pos i t s i de nt i f

i e d by T e ve tdi d nota c c ountf orthe $426, 900 ul t i m a t e l y f ound i n the bo xes. T evetal so m ade s ever al i ncon si st entst at em ent s c on ce rni ng her know l e dge of

C ohe n’ s i de nt i ty a nd hi s r e s i de nc e thr oughoutthe c our s e of the proceedi ng s. B as ed on the evi dence i n the re cord, the di stri ctcourtm ade a n e nt i r e l y pl a us i bl e f

i ndi ng w he n i tul t i m a t e l y de t e r m i ne d tha tT e ve tw a s not cr edi bl e, and T eveti s unabl e t o o verc om e the pres um pt i on i n favor of the di stri ct c o u r t’s f in d in g o n ap p e a l. See U ni t ed Stat es v. McP hee , 3 3 6 F .3 d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 5 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2003) ( s t a t i ng w e de f e rt o a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i ons be y ond c le a re rr o ra n d w ill a f

f ir m th e f in d in g a s lo n g a s it w a s p la u s ib le ) . AF F I RME D.