Rodney Sanders v. United States ( 2019 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-1286
___________________________
Rodney Lamont Sanders
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
____________
Submitted: December 26, 2018
Filed: January 8, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Rodney Sanders appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)
motion to set aside a civil forfeiture of property. He argues that he did not receive
1
The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas.
notice of the forfeiture proceeding and that the government failed to take “reasonable
steps” to ensure he received notice. Id. § 983(e)(1)(A). We review the court’s factual
findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. See United States v.
Crumble, 878 F.3d 656, 659 (8th Cir. 2018); United States v. Quintero, 648 F.3d 660,
665 (8th Cir. 2011).
Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we
conclude that the government took “reasonable steps” to notify Sanders of the
forfeiture proceeding, even if the notice did not reach him. 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1)(A);
cf. Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 168–73 (2002) (describing the due-
process requirements for notice of a forfeiture proceeding and stating that actual
notice is not required). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See
8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-