Reyna v. United States , 180 F. App'x 495 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 9, 2006
______________________
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-10878 Clerk
Summary Calendar
______________________
ANDRES MARES REYNA JR.
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellee.
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
No. 4:04–CV–598–Y
_____________________
Before: HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Federal prisoner Andres Mares Reyna, Jr. filed a civil
complaint against the Government seeking the return of property
seized in connection with his federal conviction for possession
with intent to distribute cocaine. He appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment against him. Reviewing de novo, we
affirm.
First, Reyna claims that three vehicles were improperly seized
and forfeited. The district court correctly concluded it lacks
jurisdiction to hear disputes over the vehicles. The res has never
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, this 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
been in federal custody and has not been subject to federal
forfeiture. Instead, the vehicles are in custodia legis of the
Tarrant County state district court of Texas. That court has
exclusive jurisdiction over the res. See Scarabin v. D.E.A., 966
F.2d 989, 994–95 (5th Cir. 1992).
Second, Reyna claims that he received inadequate notice that
two sums of currency, $136,238.00 and $22,733.20, were to be
forfeited in connection with his criminal case. The district court
correctly rejected this claim. The Government mailed written
notices to Reyna’s address, to his attorney, and to his parents.
The Government also published notice in the Wall Street Journal.
All of these notices advised of the right to file a claim or
petition for remission. Reyna’s contention that he received
insufficient notice is belied by the fact that he filed for
remission (through his attorney) after the Government mailed
notice. Under the circumstances of this case, the Government’s
notice was “reasonably calculated . . . to provide notice to the
claimant.” United States v. Robinson, 434 F.3d 357, 367 (5th Cir.
2005). It satisfied both constitutional and statutory procedural
requirements. See id.Third, Reyna brings substantive challenges to the forfeiture
of the currency. He argues that he earned the money through
legitimate means and that the Government seized it pursuant to
invalid search warrants. The district court correctly rejected
these claims for want of jurisdiction given that Reyna failed to
file a legal claim with the forfeiting agency. See United States
v. Schinnell, 80 F.3d 1064, 1069 n.7 (5th Cir. 1996). If Reyna had
done so, he would have triggered a judicial proceeding through
which he could have asserted defenses to forfeiture. Instead,
Reyna sought remission. “[T]his court may not review the merits of
[Reyna’s] claim because such remissions are acts of grace by the
agency.” Scarabin, 919 F.2d at 338. “Having failed to avail
[himself] of the procedures for requiring the government to
institute judicial forfeiture proceedings in the first instance,
remand is not available to reopen the inquiry into whether there
was an adequate basis for this proceeds forfeiture.” Schinnell, 80
F.3d at 1069 n.7.
AFFIRMED.