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


Menu:
  •            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    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-13294

Citation Numbers: 628 F. App'x 736

Filed Date: 1/8/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023