United States v. Calvin Joseph Moore , 628 F. App'x 736 ( 2016 )

Case: 14-13294 Date Filed: 01/08/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13294
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cr-00228-RAL-TBM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CALVIN JOSEPH MOORE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 8, 2016)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-13294 Date Filed: 01/08/2016 Page: 2 of 4
Calvin Moore, through counsel, appeals the district court’s denial of his pro
se motion to set aside or vacate a civil forfeiture for lack of notice. Moore argues
that the district court erroneously docketed his civil motion in his underlying
criminal case, in which the money at issue was seized during Moore’s arrest for
attempting to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine.
Moore and the Government agree the motion should have been construed as a
motion to set aside forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. §983(e). As a result of the docketing
error, and because the money was forfeited civilly rather than as part of his
criminal case, Moore argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to render a
judgment on the merits. In the alternative, Moore argues, and the Government
agrees, that a remand for further proceedings is necessary so that the district court
can properly treat his pro se motion as a §983(e) motion challenging the
administrative forfeiture.
This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of administrative or
nonjudicial forfeiture decisions, but we do have jurisdiction over claims seeking
review of the adjudicatory process itself. Mesa Valderrama v. United States, 417
F.3d 1189, 1194 (11th Cir. 2005). The subject matter jurisdiction of the district
court is a legal question that we review de novo. Id. In reviewing a district court’s
civil forfeiture determination, we review the district court’s factual findings for
clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. United States v. One 1990
2
Case: 14-13294 Date Filed: 01/08/2016 Page: 3 of 4
Beechcraft, 1900 C Twin Engine Turbo-Prop Aircraft, Venez. Registration No.
YV219T, Serial UC118, 619 F.3d 1275, 1277 n.4 (11th Cir. 2010). Pro se
pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys
and will, therefore, be liberally construed. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d
1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
Money derived from illegal drug transactions is subject to administrative
forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). A party seeking to challenge a nonjudicial
forfeiture is limited to doing so under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e). Mesa Valderrama,
417 F.3d at 1195. Section 983(e)(1) provides that any person entitled to written
notice in a nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding 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, which shall be granted if: (a) the government
knew, or reasonably should have known, of the moving party’s interest and failed
to take reasonable steps to provide such party with notice; and (b) the moving party
did not know or have reason to know of the seizure within sufficient time to file a
timely claim. A §983(e) motion to set aside forfeiture is “the functional equivalent
of a complaint in a civil case.” United States v. De La Mata, 535 F.3d 1267, 1278
(11th Cir. 2008).
For a criminal forfeiture, if a convicted defendant’s interest in property is to
be forfeited to the government, the district court must provide for the forfeiture as
3
Case: 14-13294 Date Filed: 01/08/2016 Page: 4 of 4
part of the defendant’s sentence. 21 U.S.C. §853(a); see also De La Mata, 535
F.3d at 1271.
Here, it is undisputed that the forfeiture at issue is an administrative
forfeiture carried out by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration. The
district court should have construed Moore’s pro se motion as a motion to set aside
assert forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. §983(e) and docketed it as a new civil matter, but
its failure to do so did not deprive the court of jurisdiction. However, the district
court erred in determining that Moore received sufficient notice of the civil
forfeiture at his sentencing hearing because that hearing took place after the civil
forfeiture had been completed. A §983(e) challenge to an administrative forfeiture
is a new civil proceeding, not a continuation of the underlying criminal case. The
district court’s order is vacated and this case is remanded for further proceedings in
accordance with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
4