Court Opinion

ID: 1001021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:49:14.513766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:17.915334
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

AKI ENTERTAINMENT, INCORPORATED,
Claimant-Appellant,

v.                                                                   No. 99-1633

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-98-3956-JFM)

Submitted: February 8, 2000

Decided: February 28, 2000

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Terrance G. Reed, Christopher A. Hostage, REED & HOSTAGE,
P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United
States Attorney, Richard C. Kay, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

AKI Entertainment, Inc., appeals from the district court's order dis-
missing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction AKI's challenge to the
Drug Enforcement Administration's intent to forfeit currency seized
from its employee, Maceo Delmontrai Belt. AKI asserted that it did
not receive notice of the forfeiture. The district court dismissed the
action because the administrative forfeiture proceedings were pend-
ing.

The district court does not have jurisdiction to address claims of
ownership of property during the pendency of administrative forfei-
ture proceedings. See Ibarra v. United States , 120 F.3d 472, 474-76
(4th Cir. 1997). "[O]nce the administrative forfeiture is completed,
district courts retain jurisdiction to review the forfeiture to determine
compliance with due process and procedural requirements." Id. at 474
n.4 (emphasis added). Therefore, the district court properly dismissed
AKI's claim for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the dis-
trict court's order dismissing this action. We express no opinion as to
the adequacy of the notice of forfeiture given to AKI. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2