Opinion ID: 2771819
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The 2005 Seizure

Text: Landry seeks the return of his property seized in 2005 because the Government did not comport with the applicable notice requirements. As the Government notes, Landry provides no evidence that the United States seized or administratively forfeited the $2,635. 6 Moreover, Landry tacitly admitted in his response to the motion for summary judgment that the APD—and not the DEA—administratively forfeited the funds. Because Landry can point to no evidence that the United States seized these funds, there is no genuine dispute as to whether the United States followed proper procedure in doing so. Cf. Reyna v. United States, 180 F. App’x 495, 496 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (unpublished) (finding no jurisdiction over a claim against the United States for the return of vehicles that it had never possessed).