Opinion ID: 2781973
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Forfeiture of Efthimiatos’s Airplanes

Text: Efthimiatos last argues that the district court erred by concluding that his 1980 Beech single-engine airplane (the “single-engine plane”) and his 1969 Beech twinengine airplane (the “twin-engine plane”) were forfeitable. “On appeal of a forfeiture order, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error. Whether those facts establish that forfeiture is proper is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.” United States v. Hull, 606 F.3d 524, 526-27 (8th Cir. 2010). The district court ordered the forfeiture of Efthimiatos’s planes under 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(2), which permits criminal forfeiture of “any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of,” the crime. The burden is on the government to establish the forfeitability of property by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Bieri, 21 F.3d 819, 822 (8th Cir. 1994); see United States v. Martin, 662 F.3d 301, 307 (4th Cir. 2011). With respect to the single-engine plane, the district court concluded that a preponderance of the evidence shows that Efthimiatos used the plane in October 2012 for drug trafficking. In so ruling, the district court relied on the following facts: Evidence introduced during the forfeiture hearing showed Defendant purchased the single engine plane on September 28, 2012, using $38,000 in cash. This purchase occurred immediately before Defendant’s admitted October 2012 drug trip. Flight records show the newly purchased single engine plane was flown to California in October 2012. During the same week Defendant flew his plane to California, his co-conspirator brother, Michael Efthimiatos, who resides in Connecticut, was also in a nearby California city. Michael Efthimiatos was involved with Defendant in Defendant’s drug activities. -6- (May 5, 2014 Prelim. Forf. Order, p. 5-6) (citations and footnote omitted). Those facts, which are not challenged by Efthimiatos, are sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Efthimiatos used his single-engine plane in October of 2012 to transport drugs from California to the East Coast. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s forfeiture of the single-engine plane. With respect to the twin-engine plane, the district court determined that Efthimiatos used a different plane each time he transported drugs via flight, wanted to obtain a more efficient plane to transport drugs, admitted that he planned to transport 200 pounds of marijuana in April 2013, and told Cooper that he no longer needed to rent Cooper’s plane once the twin-engine plane was airworthy. Those facts indicate that Efthimiatos intended to use the twin-engine plane for future drug trafficking as found by the district court. Given these findings, the district court’s conclusion of forfeitability was not erroneous.