United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-3646

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

$579,475.00 in U.S. Currency

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

LNG Express, Inc.

lllllllllllllllllllllClaimant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: September 21, 2017

 Filed: January 10, 2018

____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

KELLY, Circuit Judge.
LNG Express, Inc. (LNG) appeals the district court’s order striking its verified

1

claim in this civil forfeiture proceeding. We conclude that LNG’s verified claim is

materially indistinguishable from the claim a panel of our court found inadequate in

United States v. $154,853.00 in U.S. Currency, 744 F.3d 559 (8th Cir. 2014). We

therefore affirm.

In September 2014, an Arkansas State Police officer initiated a traffic stop of

a tractor trailer in Faulkner County, Arkansas. After the driver consented to a search

of the truck, the officer found and seized two boxes containing a total of $579,475.00

in U.S. currency. The truck’s drivers both disclaimed any knowledge of or interest

in the currency.

Believing the currency to be “drug money,” the government filed a verified

complaint in the district court, seeking forfeiture of the currency under 21 U.S.C.

§ 881(a)(6). LNG filed a timely verified claim, averring in relevant part:

1. [LNG] has a claim to, interest in, and right to the property seized

herein, specifically the defendant-in-rem, $579,475.00 in United States

Currency, and demands its restitution and return.

2. The interest of [LNG] in the defendant-in-rem by virtue of which

[LNG] demands its restitution, its return, and the right to defend the

action is all of the right, title, and interest in said defendant-in-remasthe

owner thereof.

The government moved to strike LNG’s verified claim, presenting its motion

as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The government argued that it was 2

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas.

The government alternatively presented its motion to strike as a motion for

2

summary judgment. It is clear from the record, however, that the district court

-2-
entitled to judgment on the pleadings because LNG’s verified claimfailed to meet the

threshold pleading requirement set forth in Rule G(5) of the Supplemental Rules for

Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. According to the

government, the verified claim did not identify LNG’s interest in the currency with

sufficient specificity. The district court granted the government’s motion over LNG’s

opposition, and struck LNG’s verified claim, finding it insufficient to meet

Supplemental Rule G(5)’s threshold pleading requirement. In the absence of any

other claims, the district court thereafter entered a decree of forfeiture, vesting title

to the currency in the government.

After the government initiates a civil forfeiture proceeding, a “person who

asserts an interest in the defendant property may contest the forfeiture by filing a

claim in the court where the action is pending.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(5)(a)(i). 

“The claimmust: (A) identify the specific property claimed; (B) identify the claimant

and state the claimant’s interest in the property; (C) be signed by the claimant under

penalty of perjury; and (D) be served on the government attorney . . . .” Id. “At any

time before trial, the government may move to strike a claim . . . for failing to comply

with Rule G(5) . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(8)(c)(i).

We review the district court’s striking of a claimin a civil forfeiture proceeding

for an abuse of discretion. $154,853.00, 744 F.3d at 562. “An abuse of discretion

occurs when the district court rests its conclusions on clearly erroneous factual

findings or erroneous legal conclusions.” Id. (quoting Lankford v. Sherman, 451

F.3d 496, 503–04 (8th Cir. 2006)). When ruling on a motion for judgment on the

pleadings, the district court must accept the claimant’s factual allegations astrue and

construe all reasonable inferencesin the claimant’s favor. Saterdalen v. Spencer, 725

F.3d 838, 841 (8th Cir. 2013). The district court generally may not consider materials

outside the pleadings, but it may consider some public records, materials that do not

resolved the motion as one for judgment on the pleadings.

-3-
contradict the complaint, or materials that are “necessarily embraced by the

pleadings.” Id. (quoting Noble Sys. Corp. v. Alorica Cent., LLC, 543 F.3d 978, 982

(8th Cir. 2008)).

The government argues that our previous panel opinion in United States v.

$154,853.00 in U.S. Currency is dispositive in this appeal. In $154,853.00, the

claimant initially filed a verified claim “claim[ing] the seized U.S. Currency in the

amount of $154,853, more or less,” and attesting that he “ha[d] an ownership and

possessory interest in the seized U.S. currency.” 744 F.3d at 561. The government

moved to strike the claimant’s initial verified claim for failure to sufficiently state his

interest in the currency asrequired by Supplemental Rule G(5). Id. The district court

granted the government’s first motion to strike, but granted the claimant leave to file

an amended verified claim. Id. at 562. In his amended verified claim, the claimant

averred, in relevant part, that he “ha[d] an ownership and possessory interest in the

seized U.S. Currency. $4,500 more or less of the U.S. Currency was found on

Claimant’s person and earned by Claimant through his employment.” Id. The district

court also struck the amended verified claim. Id.

In $154,853.00, we concluded that the district court had not abused its

discretion by striking the claimant’s first verified claim, reiterating this court’s

requirement that “[t]he claimant’s interest in the property must be stated with some

level of specificity.” Id. (citing United States v. Three Parcels of Real Prop., 43 F.3d

388, 391–93 (8th Cir. 1994) and United States v. $104,674.00, 17 F.3d 267, 268–69

(8th Cir. 1994)). More particularly, we described the claimant’s assertion of “an

ownership and possessory interest in the seized U.S. currency” as “only a general

assertion of his interest” in the funds, which provided “no level of specificity” and

“did not sufficiently identify his interest.” Id. at 563. We then held that the

claimant’s amended verified complaint had sufficientlystated a “colorable ownership

interest” in $4,500 of the seized funds, in light of its additional attestation that the

claimant had earned that portion of the funds “through his employment.” Id. at 564. 

-4-
This was because the claimant “would certainly have an ownership interest in earned

income.” Id. In light of the additional averment that $4,500 represented employment

income, we held that the district court had abused its discretion by striking the

claimant’s amended verified claim to the extent he sought to contest the forfeiture of

that portion of the seized funds. Id.

LNG attempts to distinguish the claim to ownership in its verified claim from

the ownership claim we found inadequate in $154,853.00. More specifically, LNG

contends that its verified claim satisfies the requirements of Rule G(5) because it

includes a claimby LNG to “all the right, title, and interest in” the seized currency “as

the owner thereof.” In LNG’s view, this statement remedies the deficiency our court

identified in the verified claim in $154,853.00, which alleged only “an ownership

interest” in the seized currency. LNG argues that, in $154,853.00, we found the

claimant’s ownership claim insufficient because it did not claim a full and complete

ownership interest in the currency to the exclusion of all others. We disagree. A

careful reading of our decision in $154,853.00 demonstrates that we found the

ownership claim faulty not because of the scope of the claimed interest. Instead, we

determined that the claimed interest was not described with sufficient specificity. 

Notably, the only difference between the ownership interest alleged in the claimant’s

initial verified claim (the striking of which we affirmed) and the one claimed in the

amended verified claim(the striking of which we reversed asto the claimant’s alleged

interest in $4,500) was the claimant’s additional averment that he had earned $4,500

of the seized currency from his employment. In short, we did not find the claimant’s

initial verified claim insufficient because it did not allege exclusive ownership of the

currency; we deemed it inadequate because it did not identify the ownership interest

with specificity.

LNG correctly notes that some of our sister circuits have declined to impose

the same requirement ofspecificity that we require of verified forfeiture claims under

Supplemental Rule G(5). In United States v. $196,969 U.S. Currency, the Seventh

-5-
Circuit held that a “bald assertion” of ownership would strictly comply with

Supplemental Rule G(5)’s requirement that the claimant state what interest he has in

the property. 719 F.3d 644, 646–47 (7th Cir. 2013). The Seventh Circuit explained

that no “additional requirements can be extracted from the [rule’s] terse and

crystalline language,” and expressly rejected that, to comply with Supplemental Rule

G(5), a claimant must state “how he obtained possession of the currency,” including,

inter alia, a description of the transaction generating the currency. Id. at 646;see also

United States v. Funds in the Amount of $239,400, 795 F.3d 639, 644 (7th Cir. 2015)

(“[S]atisfying proceduralrequirements—not establishing ‘legitimate’ ownership—is

all that Rule G asks of claimants aside from showing constitutional standing.”). 

Similarly, the Sixth Circuit recently held that “[a]t the pleading stage, a verified claim

of ownership is sufficient to satisfy Article III and the procedural requirements of

Rule G.” United States v. $31,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 872 F.3d 342, 348–54 (6th

Cir. 2017); cf. United States v. $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 638 (9th

Cir. 2012) (“At the motion to dismiss stage, a claimant’s unequivocal assertion of an

ownership interest in the property is sufficient by itself to establish [Article III]

standing.”). But cf. United States v. $38,570 U.S. Currency, 950 F.2d 1108, 1112–13

(5th Cir. 1992) (a “bare assertion” of an ownership interest in seized property,

without more, is inadequate to show Article III standing). But “[i]t is a cardinal rule

in our circuit that one panel is bound by the decision of a prior panel.” Mader v.

United States, 654 F.3d 794, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (quoting Owsley v.

Luebbers, 281 F.3d 687, 690 (8th Cir. 2002)). However persuasive these cases may

be, we are bound by this court’s panel opinion in $154,853.00.

LNG’s claim to an ownership interest in the seized currency is materially

indistinguishable from the claim this court deemed inadequate in $154,853.00, and

we are therefore bound by Eighth Circuit precedent, which only the en banc court can

overrule. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

-6-