United States v. $1,185,135.00 in United States Currency , 320 F. App'x 893 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 17, 2008
No. 07-13361 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-03056-CV-S
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
$1,185,135.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY,
Defendant,
JOSE DE JESUS FRANCO CAZAREZ,
Claimant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(October 17, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jose De Jesus Franco Cazarez (“Cazarez”) appeals the district court’s grant
of summary judgment in the government’s civil forfeiture action. The government
filed the civil forfeiture complaint under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) in connection with
$1,185,135 seized during a traffic stop involving a car driven by Cazarez. Cazarez
filed a verified claim that a “portion” of the funds belonged to him and the
remainder was in his lawful possession for another person. Cazarez also moved to
suppress or exclude the currency from the proceedings on the ground that the stop
and seizure were illegal.
The government moved for summary judgment, asserting that Cazarez
lacked standing to contest the forfeiture because he had disclaimed any ownership
of or interest in the money. In response to the motion to suppress, the government
reiterated that Cazarez lacked standing, but asserted that the traffic stop was lawful.
The district court granted the government’s summary judgment motion and
denied Cazarez’s motion to suppress. According to the district court, Cazarez
failed to establish standing to challenge the forfeiture proceeding, as he did not
show his ownership interest in the currency. The court noted that Cazarez had
signed the disclaimer and waiver. The court also concluded that Cazarez lacked
standing to challenge the stop and seizure. This appeal followed.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing
2
the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Skrtich
v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002). Standing “is a threshold
jurisdictional question which must be addressed prior to and independent of the
merits of a party’s claims.” Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 974
(11th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted and footnote added). As with all jurisdictional
issues, we review the issue de novo. Id.Cazarez argues that the stop and detention were illegal. Although the Fourth
Amendment exclusionary rule applies in civil forfeiture proceedings, One 1958
Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 702 (1965), Cazarez must first
establish standing in order to raise the suppression claim. See United States v.
$38,000 Dollars in U.S. Currency, 816 F.2d1538, 1543 (11th Cir. 1987); see also
United States v. $321,470, United States Currency, 874 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir.
1989) (explaining, in a civil forfeiture case, that standing is a threshold issue that
must be addressed before the court can consider the merits of a motion to
suppress).
Here, in a single paragraph in his summary of the argument, with no
argument or citation to case law, Cazarez states that the court erred by overlooking
his standing to challenge the search of the car. He does not, however, offer any
argument contesting the court’s finding that he lacked standing to challenge the
3
forfeiture because he failed to establish an ownership interest in the money.
Because Cazarez fails to offer any argument concerning the district court’s
conclusion that he lacked standing, and his brief reference to the issue without
argument or supporting case law is insufficient, we AFFIRM the district court. See
Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1242 n.10 (11th Cir. 2003) (concluding that the
issue was waived where the appellant made only a passing reference to the issue
and made no arguments on the merits as to that issue); see also Fed. R. App. P.
28(a)(9); Continental Tech. Servs., Inc., v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 927 F.2d 1198,
1199 (11th Cir. 1991).
4