Opinion ID: 2794597
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: such seized merchandise is any monetary

Text: instrument within the meaning of section 5312(a)(3) of title 31 of the United States Code; . . . . 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a). 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A) (emphasis added). And the requirements for filing a claim are laid out in § 983(a)(2), not § 983(a)(1). “Any person claiming property seized in a nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute may file a claim with the appropriate official after the seizure.” Id. § 983(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Here, the Government’s seizure of the property is rightfully considered a nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding. See Stefan D. Cassella, Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States 10 (2d ed. 2013) [hereinafter Cassella Second Edition] (“Basically, an administrative forfeiture begins when a federal law enforcement agency with statutory authority in a given area (e.g., DEA in a drug case, FBI in a fraud case, ATF in a firearms case) seizes property discovered in the course of an investigation.”). 10 In other words, it is when the agency “seizes property” that the “administrative forfeiture begins.” Id. Because a nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding occurred when the Government seized the coins, the Langbords had the right to submit a seized asset claim under § 983(a)(2), and, when they did, they triggered the Government’s obligation under § 983(a)(3) to bring a judicial civil forfeiture proceeding or to return the property within 90 days. The Government’s insistence that “[t]he statute says that an administrative forfeiture proceeding is initiated by the government providing notice of the seizure” is baffling. (Oral 10 While most forfeitures result from the Government’s seizure of property derived from illegal activity, CAFRA covers stolen government property in the hands of third parties, as was explained above. See 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) (cross-referencing 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7), which cross-references 18 U.S.C. § 641). 19 Arg. Tr. 52:7-9, Nov. 19, 2014.) But the District Court agreed. Quoting from a section of a treatise that does not discuss the applicability of § 983(a)(3), the District Court held that “[a] non-judicial civil forfeiture proceeding ‘is commenced when the Government sends notice of the forfeiture proceeding to potential claimants.’” (J.A. 146 (quoting Cassella First Edition, supra, at 143).) However, as the language of § 983(a)(1)(A)(i) makes clear, only in some nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceedings under a civil forfeiture statute11 is the Government required to send written notice. Otherwise, the subsection would not need to include the phrase, “in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute, with respect to which the Government is required to send written notice to interested parties.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i) (emphasis added). It cannot be that a case where no notice of forfeiture is required is nonetheless beholden to the Government’s notice as starting the administrative process. The frivolity of the Government’s position is demonstrated by the fact that it would afford the Government total discretion to avoid CAFRA altogether by unilaterally deciding not to notify the putative owner of the seizure. Further proof of why the Government is incorrect appears in § 983(e)(1), which provides that “[a]ny person 11 There is no dispute that the Government acted “under a civil forfeiture statute.” The definition of “civil forfeiture statute” is “any provision of Federal law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed upon conviction of a criminal offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(i)(1). There are five enumerated exceptions, none of which applies here. See id. § 983(i)(2). 20 entitled to written notice in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute who does not receive such notice may file a motion to set aside a declaration of forfeiture with respect to that person’s interest in the property.” Id. § 983(e)(1) (emphasis added). Section 983(e)(1) is triggered only when there is a “nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding” in which the Government has not sent notice of its intent to pursue forfeiture. But if such a proceeding can be commenced only when the Government has sent notice of its intent, then the statute makes no sense. In other words, if a nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding commences only when the Government sends notice that it is instituting such a proceeding, then § 983(e)(1), which provides a remedy in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding in which the Government was required but failed to give notice of its intent to pursue forfeiture, would be nonsensical. Therefore, it cannot be the case that a nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding is initiated only when the Government sends notice that it intends to commence such a proceeding. 12 Section 983(a)(1) does not initiate a 12 To assert that a nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding occurs only when the Government sends notice, the Government relies upon cases interpreting the 60-day notice requirement of § 983(a)(1), which do not address the applicability of the 90-day requirement in § 983(a)(3). See, e.g., United States v. Approximately $1,305,105 in Assorted Silver Bars & Gold & Silver Coins, No. 12-C-7505, 2013 WL 453195, at -3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2013), rev’d, No. 13-1452 (7th Cir. July 22, 2013); United States v. Assets Described in “Attachment A”, No. 6:09-cv-1852, 2010 WL 1893327, at  (M.D. Fla. May 11, 2010); United States v. $147,900, No. 1:06-cv-197, 2009 WL 903356, at  (M.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 21 nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding; rather, it provides the manner of giving notice when the provisions requiring notice apply. Instead, a “nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding” commences when the Government has seized property. Cassella Second Edition, supra, at 10. When the Government has seized property, then the person from whom the property was seized has the right to file a seized asset claim pursuant to § 983(a)(2)(A), thereby triggering the 90-day deadline in § 983(a)(3)(A). If the Government has not seized property, then it has no obligation to respond to a seized asset claim. Thus, the horrors described by the Government at oral argument—e.g., pro se prisoners filing seized asset claims for jailhouse televisions—is of no concern here. Because no seizure occurred in those situations, the Government would not have to file a judicial forfeiture action, even if someone files a seized asset claim. It is only when a seizure occurs that there is a “nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding” and thus the Government must respond. 13 Here, the Government 2009), vacated in part, 450 F. App’x 261 (4th Cir. 2011); DWB Holding Co. v. United States, 593 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2009). 13 (See Oral Arg. Tr. 59:4-15 (“The other problem with this notion that somebody can create their own forfeiture proceeding by filing a seized asset claim is we would be bombarded by litigation. . . . All the prisoners who say, [y]ou know, that TV set on the wall is mine, I declare it. Here’s a seized asset claim. You have 90 days to file a judicial forfeiture against me, when the government never initiated any forfeiture at all because the TV set [was never theirs]— we can go on and on with examples.”).) This example is off- 22 unquestionably committed a seizure (and an unconstitutional one at that), so it was required to respond to the Langbords’ seized asset claim, either by filing a judicial complaint within 90 days or by returning the property. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A). Instead, the Government forced the Langbords to commence this decade-long ordeal for the return of the Double Eagles. The Government’s remaining arguments as to why the 90-day deadline should not apply also lack merit. 14 These topic because the Government did not seize the TV set, and, therefore, no nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding has occurred. Accordingly, the Government would have no obligation to respond to the seized asset claim. 14 The Government has not argued that the Langbords waived their right to CAFRA’s 90-day deadline by consenting to the forfeiture proceeding, which the District Court ordered as a remedy for the Government’s unconstitutional seizure of the Double Eagles. Accordingly, the Government has waived any potential waiver argument. See Freeman v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 709 F.3d 240, 250 (3d Cir. 2013) (“[A] party can waive a waiver argument by not making the argument below or in its briefs.”). Regardless, the Langbords have clearly and repeatedly raised the argument that the Government violated the 90-day deadline in § 983(a)(3). (See, e.g., J.A. 628, 775-78.) We note that this is why there was no “agreement of the parties” as to the Government’s late filing of the forfeiture complaint. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A) (“Not later than 90 days after a claim has been filed, the Government shall file a complaint for forfeiture . . . , except that a court in the district in which the complaint will 23 arguments are: (1) the value of the Double Eagles prevented them from being subject to CAFRA; (2) the Mint was not authorized to bring a forfeiture action; and (3) § 983(a)(3)(A)’s “good cause” exception applies. First, the Government’s argument that the Double Eagles were not subject to forfeiture because their value exceeded $500,000 is unavailing. This argument relies on 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a), which states only that “the appropriate customs officer shall cause a notice of the seizure of such articles and the intention to forfeit . . . to be published for at least three successive weeks in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct.” 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a). One of the instances in which notice is not required is when the value of the property exceeds $500,000. Id. § 1607(a)(1). Because the Government assumes that notice is required to commence a forfeiture proceeding and because § 1607(a) demonstrates that no notice was required in this case, as the Double Eagles’ value allegedly exceeds $500,000, the Government argues that no forfeiture has occurred here. This argument fails. Section 1607(a) is relevant to determining whether the Government was obligated to provide notice of forfeiture within 60 days pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1), but it does not relieve the Government of its 90-day deadline in § 983(a)(3). Notice is not a prerequisite for persons to file a seized asset claim and trigger the 90-day deadline in § 983(a)(3). Second, the Government’s argument that its conduct did not amount to a nonjudicial civil forfeiture since the Mint be filed may extend the period for filing . . . upon agreement of the parties.”). 24 was not authorized to conduct a forfeiture under 31 U.S.C. § 9703 fails because the Mint is an entity within the Treasury and was not the only agency involved here. Section 9703(o)(1) provides a definition for “Department of the Treasury law enforcement organization,” a definition which includes the Secret Service but excludes the Mint. 31 U.S.C. § 9703(o)(1). 15 A separate subsection provides that “property and currency shall be deemed to be forfeited pursuant to a law enforced or administered by a Department of the Treasury law enforcement organization if it is forfeited pursuant to— . . . (B) a civil administrative forfeiture proceeding conducted by a Department of the Treasury law enforcement organization.” Id. § 9703(m)(2)(B). But the Secret Service is the agency that “seized” the Double Eagles on September 22, 2004 and that continued to have custody of the coins until months later. (J.A. 818.) The Secret Service is authorized to conduct a forfeiture pursuant to § 9703. That the Treasury ordered the Secret Service to give the Double Eagles to the Mint (J.A. 821) does not insulate the Government from CAFRA. Section 9703 sought to limit various agencies’ ability to conduct seizures; it does not give agencies that are not authorized to conduct seizures a carte blanche ability to avoid CAFRA. Third, § 983(a)(3)(A)’s “good cause” exception does not excuse the Government’s failings here. Pursuant to the statute, “[n]ot later than 90 days after a claim has been filed, the Government shall file a complaint for forfeiture . . . , except that a court in the district in which the complaint will be filed may extend the period for filing a complaint for good 15 We note an inconsistency in the U.S. Code: there are two separate statutes both identified as 31 U.S.C. § 9703. 25 cause shown or upon agreement of the parties.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A) (emphasis added). We cannot help but read this language (“shall file . . . except . . . may extend”) to mean that the good cause exception allows the Government to seek an extension of time only before the 90-day period expires. See United States v. Funds from Fifth Third Bank Account, No. 13-11728, 2013 WL 5914101, at  (E.D. Mich. Nov. 4, 2013) (“Given the narrow language used [in § 983(a)(3)(A)], this Court concludes that the Government has to seek the extension before the limitations period passes and that it cannot seek a ‘retroactive extension.’”); see also United States v. One 1991 Ford Mustang LX, 909 F. Supp. 831, 834 (D. Colo. 1996); United States v. 1986 Ford Bronco, 782 F. Supp. 1543, 1546 (S.D. Fla. 1992); United States v. One White 1987 Tempest Sport Boat, 726 F. Supp. 7, 9 (D. Mass. 1989). The period cannot be extended if it has already passed.16 16 Congress included the “good cause” exception to “make it unnecessary for the government, as it often must under current law, to file a complaint and then immediately request a stay under Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or under other statutory authority, to avoid jeopardizing a criminal case.” H.R. Rep. No. 105-358(I), at 45 (1997) (footnote omitted). Congress explained that “the court should grant an extension of time where the filing of the complaint, which is required to recite the factual basis in some detail, would reveal facts concerning a pending investigation, undercover operation, or court-authorized electronic surveillance, or would jeopardize government witnesses.” Id. at 44 (footnote omitted). Furthermore, “the court could grant the extension to allow the government to include the forfeiture in a criminal indictment, and thus avoid the 26 Even if the statute did permit retroactive extensions, the Government would not be entitled to an extension for two reasons. First, the Government’s delay was not minor; the Government failed to file a complaint until September 28, 2009—four years and nineteen days after the Langbords filed their seized asset claim—and only did so under court order. See United States v. $39,480.00 in U.S. Currency, 190 F. Supp. 2d 929, 932 & n.9 (W.D. Tex. 2002) (permitting a retroactive extension when the government was one day late). Second, according to the Government’s own documents, after the Secret Service seized the Double Eagles, “[a]ll the agencies involved, with the exception of the US Mint, [were] in favor of pursuing forfeiture.” (J.A. 818.) Thus, the Government knew that it was obligated to bring a judicial civil forfeiture proceeding or to return the property, but refused to do so. 17 As a result, the Government cannot show good cause.18 necessity of initiating parallel civil and criminal forfeitures.” Id. Congress’s reasons for including the good cause exception are certainly not applicable here. 17 We note that an unjustified mistake of law can hardly be considered “good cause.” See Green v. Humphrey Elevator & Truck Co., 816 F.2d 877, 884 (3d Cir. 1987) (“We need not decide here, the parameters of the ‘good cause’ exception to Rule 4(j) for it is clear that an unjustified misunderstanding of the requirements of the law will not suffice.”). 18 The Government incorrectly states that the District Court found good cause here. The District Court stated no more than that “the Government might still have had an opportunity to file a judicial forfeiture action” under the good cause exception. (J.A. 148 n.3 (emphasis added).) However, it did not find good cause, nor could it have. 27 Accordingly, a nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding occurred here, and the Government missed the 90-day deadline under § 983(a)(3). On September 9, 2005, when the Langbords submitted their seized asset claim, the 90-day period in § 983(a)(3) commenced. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A). The Government failed to return the Langbords’ property or institute a judicial civil forfeiture proceeding within 90 days. Having failed to do so, it must return the Double Eagles to the Langbords. 19 19 While the dissent refers to a myriad of cases purportedly contradicting the reasoning and the result we embrace, those cases are easily distinguishable, and the impact of CAFRA’s specific language in § 983(a)(3) could not be clearer. The dissent’s argument—i.e., that the Government should have followed § 983(a)(3) but that its failure does not lead to the return of the Langbords’ property—is a novel position that was not urged by the Government. Moreover, the statutes that are the subject of the cases cited in the dissent have little in common with CAFRA. See, e.g., Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010) (Mandatory Restitution Act); Shenango Inc. v. Apfel, 307 F.3d 174 (3d Cir. 2002) (Coal Act). It relies on forfeiture cases that do not involve § 983(a)(3) at all. See, e.g., Garcia v. Meza, 235 F.3d 287 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Giraldo, 45 F.3d 509 (1st Cir. 1995); Lopez v. United States, 863 F. Supp. 2d 127 (D. Mass. 2012); DeSaro v. United States, No. 06-cv-20531 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2006). It relies on cases that describe whether a statutory deadline is jurisdictional, which is relevant for situations in which the claimant failed to timely argue that the 90-day deadline in § 983(a)(3) required the return of the property, with the claimant instead making the § 983(a)(3) argument in, e.g., a Rule 60 motion to vacate a judgment. See, e.g., United States 28 v. Vazquez-Alvarez, 760 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam); United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Martin, 662 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2011). Here, in contrast, the Langbords have pressed this argument since day one. See supra note 14. And it relies on cases interpreting the 60-day notice deadline in § 983(a)(1). See, e.g., United States v. $11,500.00 in U.S. Currency, 710 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013); United States v. $114,031.00 in U.S. Currency, No. 06-cv-21820, 2007 WL 2904154 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2007); Salmo v. United States, No. 06-12909, 2006 WL 2975503 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 17, 2006); Manjarrez v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, No. 01-7530, 2002 WL 31870533 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 19, 2002). The 60-day notice deadline in § 983(a)(1) is fundamentally different from the 90-day deadline in § 983(a)(3) because, if the Government misses § 983(a)(1)’s 60-day deadline, CAFRA specifically allows the Government “to commence a forfeiture proceeding at a later time.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(F). There is no analogous provision that gives the Government a second chance if it misses the 90-day deadline in § 983(a)(3) or otherwise excuses the failure to act. Congress could have included such a provision, but it did not. As noted by Wilson—a case relied upon by the dissent—“the time limit imposed on the government by § 983(a)(3) is mandatory.” 699 F.3d at 791. “If the Government does not file a complaint or take other action within 90 days as required, it must ‘release the property pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Attorney General, and may not take any further action to effect the civil forfeiture of such property in connection with the underlying offense.’” Id. at 795 (emphasis added) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(B)). In that case, Wilson lost merely because he raised his § 983(a)(3) argument too late, i.e., in a Rule 60 motion to vacate the 29