Opinion ID: 796399
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Forfeiture Offset

Text: 17 Ruff next argues that the district court erred in denying his request to offset the restitution amount with the proceeds from the confiscated items. Ruff made this same argument in his initial appeal; we concluded that the bar against double recovery should operate in the context of this case to preclude the Iowa DNE from recovering an amount greater than the agency expended on controlled drug buys in Ruff's case. Ruff, 420 F.3d at 775. Accordingly, we held that on remand, [i]f Ruff can establish the Iowa DNE received any forfeiture funds, the district court shall modify the restitution order to prevent double recovery by the Iowa DNE. Id. at 776. On remand, the district court determined that the Iowa DNE did not receive any of the proceeds from the confiscated items, a finding we review for clear error. United States v. Williams, 359 F.3d 1019, 1020 (8th Cir.2004). 18 There is no reason to conclude, and Ruff does not contend, that the district court clearly erred when it found that the Iowa DNE did not receive any of the proceeds from the confiscated items. Rather, Ruff contends that the Iowa DNE should have received a portion of the proceeds from the confiscated items and that these proceeds should offset his restitution obligation. Ruff presents two arguments in support of this contention: 1) the Iowa DNE is, in essence, the same entity as the Task Force, and 2) if the Iowa DNE and the Task Force are separate entities, federal law mandates that a portion of the forfeited property be given to the Iowa DNE. Neither argument is persuasive. 19 Ruff argues that the Iowa DNE and the Task Force are the same entity because certain Iowa DNE agents are members of the Task Force and receive training from the Task Force. This argument was presented to—and rejected by—the district court. The district court concluded that the Task Force had a separate budget from the Iowa DNE and that the executive board that oversees the Task Force is composed of a DEA agent, an Iowa DNE agent, and several police chiefs and county sheriffs from the surrounding area. Given these facts, it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to conclude that the Task Force and the Iowa DNE are distinct entities and that the forfeited property provided to the Task Force should not offset Ruff's restitution obligations to the Iowa DNE. 20 Ruff also argues that federal law requires that the Iowa DNE be paid a portion of the funds from his forfeited property because it had significant participation in the law enforcement effort leading to his arrest. Ruff did not present this argument to the district court and raises it for the first time here. In the context of a criminal proceeding, we review arguments not presented to the district court for plain error. United States v. Willis, 433 F.3d 634, 637 (8th Cir.2006). Under the plain error standard, we will only reverse obvious errors which affect a defendant's substantial rights and seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Hart, 397 F.3d 643, 647 (8th Cir.2005) (citations omitted). 21 21 U.S.C. § 881(e)(3) provides that [t]he Attorney General shall assure that any property transferred to a State or local law enforcement agency . . . (A) has a value that bears a reasonable relationship to the degree of direct participation of the State or local agency in the law enforcement effort resulting in the forfeiture . . . and (B) will serve to encourage further cooperation between the recipient State or local agency and Federal law enforcement agencies. It is not obvious that this statute confers on Ruff either substantive rights or the ability to challenge the distribution of the forfeited property. Instead, it directs the Attorney General on the proper allocation of forfeiture funds between federal and state or local law enforcement agencies. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in denying Ruff's request to offset the restitution amount with the forfeiture proceeds.