United States v. Scott Crossland , 75 F. App'x 558 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                    United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 03-1210
    ___________
    United States of America,              *
    *
    Plaintiff-Appellee,       *
    *
    v.                               *
    * Appeal from the United States
    $29,000, also known as Elita           * District Court for the Western
    Crossland, also known as Thomas Scott * District of Arkansas.
    Crossland, in United States Currency; *
    *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    Defendant,                *
    *
    Scott Crossland, also known as Thomas *
    Scott Crossland,                       *
    *
    Claimant-Appellant.       *
    ___________
    Submitted: September 2, 2003
    Filed: September 15, 2003
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Scott Crossland appeals from the district court’s* adverse grant of summary
    judgment in Crossland's civil forfeiture action, contending there was evidence in the
    record to establish the $29,000 at issue represented proceeds from legitimate business
    ventures, the district court wrongly denied his motion to stay the summary judgment
    motion, and the forfeiture action was untimely. After careful review, we affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a stay, because
    Crossland did not identify the discovery he was lacking and how a continuance would
    have enabled him to obtain needed discovery. See Alexander v. Pathfinder, Inc., 
    189 F.3d 735
    , 744 (8th Cir. 1999). We also conclude summary judgment was proper
    because the government presented unrebutted evidence of probable cause, and
    Crossland failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the money
    represented proceeds from a legitimate business. See United States v. Premises
    Known as 7725 Unity Ave. N., Brooklyn Park, Minn., 
    294 F.3d 954
    , 958 (8th Cir.
    2002). Finally, the forfeiture action was timely filed. See United States v. Twenty-
    Seven Parcels of Real Prop. Located in Sikeston, Mo., 
    236 F.3d 438
    , 440 (8th Cir.
    2001) (statute of limitations).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    *
    The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Arkansas.
    -2-