Hyon Ok Stallings v. United States , 149 F. App'x 555 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 04-1389
    ___________
    United States of America,              *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                               * District Court for the
    * District of Minnesota.
    $20,000.00 in U.S. Currency,           *
    *
    Defendant,                 * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Hyon Ok Stallings,                     *
    *
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: September 21, 2005
    Filed: September 27, 2005
    ___________
    Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Claimant Hyon Ok Stallings appeals from the district court’s1 adverse grant of
    summary judgment in this civil forfeiture action.
    1
    The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota.
    We conclude summary judgment was proper because the government met its
    burden of proving probable cause to forfeit the $20,000 at issue, and Stallings failed
    to meet her burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the $20,000
    was not connected to drug-trafficking activities. See United States v. Premises
    Known as 7725 Unity Ave. N., Brooklyn Park, Minn., 
    294 F.3d 954
    , 958 (8th Cir.
    2002) (burden shifting); United States v. $141,770 in U.S. Currency, 
    157 F.3d 600
    ,
    604 (8th Cir. 1998) (where large sums of money are not only stowed in an unusual
    location, but are also wrapped in scented fabric softener sheets and sealed in zip-lock
    bags, connection to drug trafficking cannot reasonably be disputed); United States v.
    $41,305 in Currency and Travelers Checks, 
    802 F.2d 1339
    , 1344-45 (11th Cir. 1986)
    (claimant must do more than show existence of possible legitimate sources for cash,
    because possibility alone does not constitute preponderance of evidence defeating
    forfeiture). We find no compelling reason to consider evidence Stallings attempts to
    submit for the first time on appeal. See Rivers-Frison v. Se. Mo. Cmty. Treatment
    Ctr., 
    133 F.3d 616
    , 619 n.2 (8th Cir. 1998).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-