Court Opinion

ID: 2964765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:43.489248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:01.099207
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                 ___________________

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1936

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                               BILLY RAY MCDOWELL, JR.,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            Billy Ray McDowell, Jr. on brief pro se.
            _______________________
            Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Joseph J.  Frattallone,
            _____________                              ______________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                     June 9, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Billy Ray McDowell  was convicted of  drug
                 __________

            trafficking offenses in June  1988.  In March 1996,  he moved

            in the  district court  for the  return of  $4000 in  cash, a

            cellular  telephone,  and a  briefcase  containing documents,

            each of which he claims  were seized from him at the  time of

            his  arrest in  February 1988;  according to  the government,

            these items  were later  administratively forfeited.   See 21
                                                                   ___

            U.S.C.   881 (providing for  forfeiture of property or  money

            used to facilitate or traceable to a drug offense); 19 U.S.C.

               1607-09 (outlining administrative forfeiture procedure for

            items worth  $500,000 or  less).  In  his collateral  attack,

            McDowell claims that he received no notice of the forfeitures

            and alleges that they  violated his right to due  process and

            should be invalidated.     See United States  v. Giraldo,  45
                                       ___ _____________     _______

            F.3d 509, 511-12 (1st Cir. 1995) (per curiam).  

                 The short  response submitted  by the government  in the

            district court  was apparently  intended to suggest  that the

            forfeitures  were  in  fact  valid.    But  to  support  this

            suggestion, the  government simply  asked  the district court

            to "take notice" of the fact that the  cash and telephone had

            been   "administratively   forfeited,"   as    evidenced   by

            declarations of forfeiture for  these two items, which merely

            recited that notice had been  sent to all interested persons.

            The  government also reported that it  had neither record nor

            recollection of a seized briefcase.  

                                         -2-
                                         -2-

                 The district court denied the defendant's motion, citing

            the  "facts" provided by  the Government--facts pertaining to

            the administrative forfeiture proceedings and not the  merits

            of the forfeiture.   The defendant now appeals.   The parties

            repeat  the  arguments  advanced below,  with  the government

            adding the contention that the district court in  Puerto Rico

            lacked jurisdiction to decide the motion because the property

            was seized in Texas.

                 1.   With  respect  to  the  cell phone  and  cash,  the

            defendant  appears  to  have an  almost  hopeless  case.   He

            concedes  that the seizure occurred at the time of the arrest

            that  led to  his  conviction, as  he  attempted to  open  an

            airport  locker  which he  thought  contained  cocaine.   See
                                                                      ___

            United  States v.  McDowell, 918  F.2d 1004,  1006 (1st  Cir.
            ______________     ________

            1990).  The facts  recited in the first appellate  opinion in

            this  case also reveal that  McDowell carried $4000 cash, the

            exact  amount of the  delivery fee for  the drugs, separately

            from other  funds, and  that he repeatedly  communicated with

            coconspirators by phone.  McDowell, 918 F.2d at 1006.  
                                      ________

                 On the  surface, the  government's case  looks extremely

            strong.   See United States v. One  Lot of U.S. Currency, 103
                      ___ _____________    _________________________

            F.3d  1048, 1053-54  (1st  Cir. 1997)  (forfeiture proper  if

            government  shows  probable  cause  to  believe  that  seized

            property  has a  sufficient  nexus to  illegal activity,  and

            defendant fails to rebut);  United States v. One Lot  of U.S.
                                        _____________    ________________

                                         -3-
                                         -3-

            Currency,  927 F.2d 30, 32 (1st Cir. 1991) (probable cause to
            ________

            believe  that cash and car were forfeitable where cash amount

            equaled the  promised purchase  price in a  sting transaction

            and the defendant drove the car to the airport meeting place,

            apparently  planning to  use  it to  transport the  purchased

            drugs).   Nothing in the  defendant's papers explains  how he

            expects to avoid forfeiture, even if the prior administrative

            proceedings were procedurally defective.  

                 Nevertheless,  this is only  our own reconstruction; the

            government has not made, and the  defendant has not answered,

            such  a  claim; and  there is  no  reason why  the government

            should  not  turn square  corners  even  if it  is  defending

            against a  dubious collateral attack on a  forfeiture.  Here,

            the record contains no response to the defendant's allegation

            that he had not received adequate notice, which in some cases

            might  negate a  forfeiture's validity,  Giraldo, 45  F.3d at
                                                     _______

            512,  and the  government did  not attempt  to show  that the

            property was  plainly forfeitable,  giving  the defendant  an

            opportunity to answer.

                 There  is some conflict  in the law  as to  who needs to

            show  what  when the  defendant makes  a  claim like  the one

            before us.

            Compare United  States v. Deninno,  103 F.3d 82,  85-86 (10th
            _______ ______________    _______

            Cir. 1996)  with Boero  v. DEA,  111 F.3d 301,  306 (2d  Cir.
                        ____ _____     ___

            1997).  We see no reason to lay down any general rule.  But

                                         -4-
                                         -4-

            in the present case we think that an adequate answer needs to

            be   provided  by   the  government--whether   procedural  or

            substantive--before  defendant's  motion  may   be  summarily

            denied.

                 2.   As   to  McDowell's   further  allegation   that  a

            briefcase containing documents  was improperly forfeited, the

            government  says that it has no record  of such an item.  But

            it  points to no inventory list or similar evidence; nor does

            it provide  any other explanation for  the divergence between

            the defendant's  version of  the events and  the government's

            records.  

                 The  government  may  have an  excellent  laches defense

            since  the defendant waited eight years to file a motion that

            could have been made promptly;  this delay might help explain

            the  gaps in the government's evidence.   Cf. Angel-Torres v.
                                                      ___ ____________

            United  States, 712 F.2d 717,  719-20 (1st Cir. 1983) (motion
            ______________

            for  return of  property  subject to  equitable  principles).

            However, as  the government did  not assert laches  below and

            the district court made  no relevant findings, we  decline to

            affirm the denial of the motion with respect to the briefcase

            on that ground.

                 3.   The government belatedly  says on  appeal that  the

            defendant brought  his claim in  the wrong court.   We do not

            think that this minimally briefed case is a vehicle for us to

            determine  where  a  post-conviction  motion  for  return  of

                                         -5-
                                         -5-

            property  should  be made  if  the property  seizure  and the

            related criminal  trial  occurred in  different  districts--a

            question on  which other  circuits disagree.   Compare United
                                                           _______ ______

            States  v. Giovanelli,  998 F.2d 116,  118-19 (2d  Cir. 1993)
            ______     __________

            (venue  proper  in  prosecuting  district)  and  Thompson  v.
                                                        ___  ________

            Covington,  47 F.3d  974,  975 (8th  Cir. 1995)  (per curiam)
            _________

            (venue  proper  only  in prosecuting  district)  with  United
                                                             ____  ______

            States  v. Garcia, 65 F.3d  17, 20-21 (4th  Cir. 1995) (venue
            ______     ______

            proper only in seizing district).  While  the district  court

            is free to hear  the government's argument on this  point, it

            may be simpler to assume jurisdiction arguendo, assuming that
                                                  ________

            the  government  has  an adequate  substantive  or procedural

            answer  to defendant's  claim.    In  any event,  we  decline

            ourselves to affirm  the dismissal based on  a venue argument

            never presented to the district court.

                 The district court's judgment  is vacated and the matter
                                                   _______

            remanded   for  further  proceedings   consistent  with  this
            ________

            opinion.

                 It is so ordered.
                 ________________

                                         -6-
                                         -6-