United States v. Williams , 89 F. App'x 893 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 23, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 03-30630 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VINCENT WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CR-129-2-L
- - - - - - - - - -
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Vincent Williams, federal prisoner # 27040-034, appeals the
district court’s denial of his request for habeas corpus relief,
which the district court construed as a FED. R. CRIM. P. 41 motion
for return of property. Williams seeks the return of $13,809 in
currency that was forfeited following his guilty-plea conviction
for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50
grams of cocaine base and more than 500 grams but less than five
kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride. He argues that the
Government failed to show that the currency was derived from his
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-30630
-2-
drug activities and failed to provide adequate notice of the
forfeiture of the currency.
Although the district court construed Williams’ request for
habeas corpus relief as falling under FED. R. CRIM. P. 41(e), the
criminal proceeding against him had already concluded when he
brought this action. We therefore treat the FED. R. CRIM. P.
41(e) motion as a civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, seeking
the return of property, and treat the district court’s denial of
that motion as the grant of summary judgment in favor of the
Government. See Clymore v. United States, 217 F.3d 370, 373 (5th
Cir. 2000). This court reviews the grant of summary judgment de
novo. Horton v. City of Houston, 179 F.3d 188, 191 (5th Cir.
1999).
Assuming that Williams had a lawful interest in the money
and was entitled to notice, Williams’ allegation that he did not
receive adequate notice of the forfeiture or was unaware that the
$13,809 was forfeitable is refuted by the record. The Government
filed a Notice of Forfeiture and a Bill of Particulars for
Forfeiture of Property which specifically stated that as a result
of the offenses alleged against Williams, any and all assets
derived from any proceeds of the offenses or used to commit the
offenses were forfeitable property. Moreover, as part of his
plea agreement, Williams agreed to forfeit any assets, including
currency, that were either proceeds of the narcotics violation or
were involved in narcotics trafficking. Lastly, the Government
submitted evidence showing that it had published the notice of
No. 03-30630
-3-
the seizure in the Times-Picayune. See 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a);
Barrera-Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 660 (5th Cir.
1996). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. Williams’ motion for leave to file a reply brief out
of time is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO FILE OUT-OF-TIME REPLY BRIEF DENIED.