Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-07
Citations: 185 F. App'x 231
Docket Number: No. 05-7586
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Patrick EDWARDS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 231–232

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Patrick EDWARDS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7586.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 22, 2006.
Decided: June 7, 2006.
Patrick Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, William Edward Fitzpatrick, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Edwards appeals the district court's order denying his motion for return of administratively forfeited property. The district court determined that the notice provided by the Government was constitutionally adequate. We disagree. No attempt was apparently made to serve Edwards with notice of the forfeiture proceeding either in person or at the location at which he was then-incarcerated by federal authorities, despite the facts that (1) he made an initial court appearance in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia, the district and division in which the forfeiture proceeding was initiated, on the very day notice of the forfeiture proceeding was sent to the Wayne County Jail in Detroit, an attorney's address in Detroit, and a residential address in Chicago; (2) he made a second court appearance in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia the very day notice of the forfeiture proceeding was published in The Wall Street Journal; and (3) he remained in federal custody during the entire period in which the administrative forfeiture action remained pending. Under these circumstances, we conclude that notice was not reasonably calculated to apprise Edwards of the pendency of the action of forfeiture. See United States v. Minor, 228 F.3d 352 (4th Cir.2000). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED