N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. GER ALD LER OY B AR

N ES, II, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30218

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-00226-B R -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

10, 2016 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FISHER , B ER

ZON, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s . Ge ra ld Le roy

B arne s, II a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his re que st for re turn of se ve ra l fire arm s se iz e d by the U.S. Drug Enforc e m e nt Adm inistra tion (“ DEA” ) during a

n inve stiga

t ion. Thosefire arm s we re subse q ue n t ly forfe ite d to the g ove rnm e nt. 

# FIL ED APR 11 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B arne s c onte nds tha t the DEA se nt him

ina de quate notic e be fore forfe iting his fire arm s, in tha

t the notic e fa ile d a de quate ly to inform him of the c onse que nc e s of pe titioning for re m ission of the fire a rm s, rathe r tha

n filing a c la im for the ir re turn. He a lso c onte nds tha t his le tte r in re sponse to the forfe iture notic e satisfie d the re quire m e nts for both a pe tition for re m ission a

nd a c la im , and tha

t the re fore the U nite d State s should not ha ve c onstrue d his le tte r a s sole ly a pe tition for re m ission. The notic e se nt to B arne s is quite proble m atic . It doe s not ide ntify the m a in distinc tion be twe e n the two diffe re nt route s for forfe iture . R e m ission a ssum e s the va lidity of the forfe i ture , a

nd the forfe iting a ge nc y

re turns the forfe ite d prope rty only if it de c ide s, within its disc re tion, to e xc use the grounds for forfe iture . Se e 28 C .F.R . § 9.1 e t se q. B y

c ontra st, the filing of a c la im is in the nature of a

le ga l, substa ntive c ha lle nge to the m e rits of the forfe iture . Se e18 U.S.C . § 983(a )(2). The only indic a tion of this distinc tion in the

notic e is the word “ re m ission,”not c om m only use d or unde rstood to m e an a disc re tiona

ry a c t of gra c e , an d the a ddition of the

word “ (par don) ” im

m e diate l y following “re m ission”in the se nte nc e , whic h is a

wkwa rdly loc a te d a n d not e xpla ine d . The gove rnm e nt c ould have m uc h m ore c le arly

sta te d this m ost im

porta nt distinc tion in the notic e , a s it did in its lette r forfe iting B arne s’ prope rty , y e t it did not. 2In a ddition, the notic e s tate s tha

t a prope rty owne r se e king re lie f from forfe iture m ay file a

pe t ition for re m ission “ a

nd/or” a c l a im but doe s not e xpla in what ha ppe ns whe n the prope rty

owne r doe s so. For insta n c e , the notic e doe s not e xpla in tha

t the filing of a

c l a im te rm inat e s the a dm i nistra tive forfe i ture . S

e e Malladi Drugs & Pharms., Ltd. v . Tandy , 552 F.3d 885, 889 n.1 (D.C . C ir. 2009) (“ [A] s a pra c t ic a l m a tte r, filing a

c la im to c onte st the forfe iture in c ourt e nds the a dm inistra

tive forfe i ture from

whic h a n owne r would pe tition for re m ission.” ). The notic e a l s o fa ils to e xpla i n wha t ha ppe ns to thepe tition for re m i ssion if a c la im is file d. Doe s the filing of a c la im m oot the pe tition for re m ission? C f. C onse rv ation Forc ev . Salazar , 646 F.3d 1240, 1242–43 (9th C ir. 2011) (de s c ribing re m ission a

nd a c la im a s “ a lte rnative . . . re m e die s” (quoting Malladi , 552 F.3d a

t 890)). Or doe s the pe tition re m a i n via ble notwithsta

nding the filing of a c la im ? Se e 28 C .F.R . § 9.3(a ) (stating tha t pe titions for re m ission “ s ha ll be c onside re d any

time a fte r notic e until the

prope rty has be e n forfe ite d

” (e m pha sis a dde d)). None the le ss, de s pite the notic e ’ s ina de qua c ie s, the re c ord m a ke s c le ar that B arne s, in fa c t, m e ant to re que st re m ission, not to file a c la im . His le tte rs to the DEA e xpre ssly

re que s te d “ re m ission”of the fire arm s. Whe n the DEA re sponde d to his first le tte r, it e xplic itly c h ara c te riz e d B arne s’ le tte r a s a pe tition for 3re m ission, a

c ha ra c te riz a tion B arne s did not c orre c t in his further c om m unic a tions. In a ddition, B a

rne s ha d a c c e ss to a

la wy e r during the forfe i ture proc e ss, a nd som e e vide nc e in the re c ord indic a te s tha t he disc usse d the proc e ss with his thena ttorne y . M ore ove r, nowhe re ha s B arne s a sse rte d that he wa s ac tually c o nfuse d a bout the fa c t tha

t he wa s filing a

pe tition for disc re tiona

ry re lie f from

forfe iture , ra the r tha n a c la im of a le ga l or fa c tua l right to not ha ve his prope rty forfe ite d. His de c la ra tion, file d with thedistric t c o urt in support of his m otion for re t

urn of prope rty , doe s not a

tte s t to suc h c onfusion. Fina lly , be c a use B arne s wa s not ta

ke n to ha ve file d a c la i m , his pe tition we n t forwa rd. For the se re a sons, a

ny ina de qua c y in the notic e wa s ha

rm l e ss, a nd B arne s’ c onte ntion tha t the DEA should not ha

ve c onstrue d his le tte rs a s sole ly re que sts for re m ission is not pe rsua sive . To the e xte nt tha

t B arne s a lso se e k s e quita ble re lie f, tha

t re lie f is not ava ila ble to him , for the re a sons disc usse d a bove . AFFIRM E D.

4