Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207129/United-States-v-Donald-Wilson-4th-Cir-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:54:27+00:00

Document:
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers, District Judge.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Adam H. Charnes, Thurston H.
Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
affirmed. See United States v. $13,963, More or Less, in U.S.
Currency, 382 F. Appx 268 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
to raise, and not a jurisdictional condition.
Wilsons Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate the forfeiture judgment.
the evidence indisputably established that the money was substantially connected to Wilsons drug-trafficking activities.
our mandate on September 1, 2010.
that the provision was instead a statute of limitations that Wilson had failed to raise and therefore had forfeited.
of cases that had treated 983(a)(3) as a jurisdictional condition.
appeal. We appointed counsel to represent him.
time during the course of the proceedings challenged the governments tardiness.
order vacating the judgment of forfeiture. See Gonzalez v.
resurrected at any point in the litigation").
incentive to file forfeiture actions even when late, thus undermining the statutes purpose of providing protection to property owners.
in bad faith and because Wilson received his day in court.
of the district courts subject matter jurisdiction.
without it, a court can only decide that it does not have jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Envt, 523 U.S.
must, when questioned, be decided before any other matter.
been followed. See Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S.
Pac. R.R. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engrs & Trainmen Gen.
(2008); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007); Arbaugh v.
546 U.S. 12 (2005) (per curiam); Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S.
motions or claims brought before the court." Dolan, 130 S.
J., dissenting) ("The proper dichotomy is between claims processing rules that are jurisdictional, and those that are not").
1203; see also Gonzalez, 132 S. Ct. at 649 (describing application of "clear-statement principle").
Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 394 (1982) (quoted in Henderson, 131 S.
Ct. at 1204; Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 515); Gonzalez, 132 S. Ct.
to speak clearly on this point." Henderson, 131 S. Ct. at 1203.
will presume that Congress intended to follow that course."
provision contemplates that such forfeitures may be accomplished through either criminal or civil proceedings. See id.
civilly, the procedural rules provided by 18 U.S.C. 983 govern the proceeding.
Section 983, entitled "General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings," was enacted in 2000 as part of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-185, 114 Stat.
for good cause shown or upon agreement of the parties.
connection with the underlying offense." Id. 983(a)(3)(B).
for pursuing a civil forfeiture are provided by 18 U.S.C.
procedural rule of 983(a)(3) is a condition of jurisdiction.
complaint not later than 90 days after a claim has been filed.
courts." Zipes, 455 U.S. at 394.
the scope of the district courts authority to hear a case.
subject matter jurisdiction as a result of noncompliance.
matter jurisdiction over civil forfeiture actions by 28 U.S.C.
Court of Federal Claims is jurisdictional. 552 U.S. at 138-39.
imposing a time limit should be considered jurisdictional."
should not be treated as jurisdictional.
not immunize that property from forfeiture as long as the government can sustain the forfeiture claim with independent evidence").
reason "that justifies relief," so long as the reason is "extraordinary." See Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 500 (4th Cir.
include a motion under Rule 60(b)(6) that should be granted.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.