United States v. $112,061.00 in United States Currency
693 F. App'x 748
10th Cir.2017Background
- Law enforcement seized $112,061 from Jamie Sanchez’s residence following a parole visit and a subsequent search; officers also found two handguns, drug-packaging materials, and kilo-sized packaging materials.
- Sanchez had sold cocaine to undercover officers in 2013 and later pled guilty in Colorado state court to unlawful distribution based on those sales.
- Sanchez filed a verified claim in the federal in rem forfeiture action (21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6)) and moved to suppress evidence obtained by a search warrant, arguing the warrant was an impermissible general warrant.
- A Colorado state court previously ruled the warrant was a general warrant but that the good-faith exception applied and denied suppression; Sanchez entered a plea in that state case.
- The federal district court applied Colorado issue-preclusion law to bar relitigation of the suppression ruling, found Sanchez failed to dispute the government’s summary-judgment facts, and granted summary judgment for forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sanchez can relitigate suppression after state court denied his motion | Sanchez: preclusion inapplicable because charges were dismissed and he lacked appellate review | Government: state-court ruling is final and preclusive; Sanchez waived appellate rights via plea | Court: Issue preclusion applies; plea and dismissals do not defeat preclusion because Sanchez had opportunity and waived review |
| Whether summary judgment forfeiting the $112,061 is appropriate | Sanchez: relied on suppression argument; did not contest government facts | Government: currency is proceeds of narcotics sales and Sanchez has insufficient legitimate income | Court: Grant affirmed — Sanchez failed to controvert undisputed facts; government met substantial-connection burden |
| Burden to show currency connected to drug trafficking | Sanchez: (no substantive response) | Government: must show substantial connection per 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(3) | Court: Government satisfied its burden based on undisputed factual record |
| Effect of failure to respond to summary-judgment facts | Sanchez: no additional opposition | Government: facts deemed undisputed under Rule 56 | Court: Facts treated as undisputed; district court properly entered summary judgment after confirming appropriateness |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. $252,300.00 in U.S. Currency, 484 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir.) (standards for government to show substantial connection between property and offense)
- United States v. 16328 S. 43rd E. Ave., 275 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2002) (de novo review of summary judgment in forfeiture matters)
- Perez v. El Tequila, LLC, 847 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2017) (district court must still ensure summary judgment is appropriate when facts are undisputed)
- Kilcrease v. Domenico Transp. Co., 828 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2016) (affirming summary judgment where nonmoving party failed to dispute material facts)
- Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373 (U.S. 1985) (preclusive effect of state-court judgments governed by state law)
- Neuhaus v. People, 289 P.3d 19 (Colo. 2012) (guilty plea can forfeit appellate review of suppression rulings)
- Brody v. United States, 705 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir.) (appellate claims may be rejected for insufficient record)