United States v. $134,750 U.S. Currency, 535 F. App'x 232

In rem civil forfeiture action: government seized $134,750 from accounts held by claimant Amanuel Asefaw, alleging deposits were structured to evade bank reporting requirements (31 U.S.C. § 5324) and sought forfeiture under § 5317(c).
Over six business days in 2007, Asefaw made 18 cash deposits totaling $142,950 at multiple branches/banks, none exceeding $10,000; ten deposits were exactly $10,000 and several were made in rapid sequence.
Government expert (IRS SA Veloso) testified the pattern was consistent with structuring; a Citibank employee (Cuevas) testified Asefaw admitted depositing $10,000 to avoid CTRs; records also showed prior CTRs at M&T Bank and a prior registration as a money services business.
Jury found by a preponderance that the funds were traceable to structuring; district court entered final forfeiture; Asefaw appealed alleging insufficient evidence, evidentiary errors, discovery violations, and an excessive forfeiture under the Eighth Amendment.
Fourth Circuit affirmed: declined to review sufficiency challenge (no Rule 50(b) renewal), reviewed evidentiary and disclosure rulings for abuse/harmless error, and applied Bajakajian factors to reject an excessive-fine challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for intent to evade reporting	Asefaw: government failed to prove he knew of reporting requirements and intentionally structured deposits	Government: circumstantial pattern and admissions show intent	Not reviewed on appeal (Asefaw failed to renew Rule 50(b) motion), so forfeited
Admission of prior CTRs / MSB registration under Rule 403	Asefaw: prior CTRs and MSB registration were unfairly prejudicial and misleading	Government: evidence tends to show prior exposure to reporting requirements and is relevant	No abuse of discretion; admissible and not unfairly prejudicial
Untimely disclosure of witnesses (Rule 26/37) — Veloso, Cuevas, Schallmo, Smiley	Asefaw: witnesses were not timely disclosed; testimony should be excluded under Rule 37(c)(1)	Government: disclosures were timely under court order for Veloso; other omissions were harmless	Veloso: timely under scheduling order. Other undisclosed witnesses: possible Rule 26 violation but any error was harmless (testimony cumulative or circumstantial case strong)
Eighth Amendment excessive-fines challenge to forfeiture amount	Asefaw: forfeiture of seized funds is grossly disproportional to his offense	Government: forfeiture falls within fines Congress authorized for structuring and is proportional given repeated interference with banks' reporting duties	Rejected under plain error review: forfeiture not grossly disproportional; Bajakajian factors favor constitutionality

Bajakajian v. United States, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) (governs Excessive Fines Clause "grossly disproportional" analysis)
United States v. Ahmad, 213 F.3d 805 (4th Cir. 2000) (upheld civil forfeiture for repeated structuring; applied Bajakajian factors)
United States v. Jalaram, Inc., 599 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 2010) (forfeiture not grossly disproportional for sustained criminal enterprise)
United States v. $79,650.00 Seized from Bank of Am., 650 F.3d 381 (4th Cir. 2011) (discusses statutory fine ranges for structuring offenses)
Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006) (preserving sufficiency-of-evidence challenges requires Rule 50(b) renewal)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain error standard for unpreserved objections)
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (harmless-error standard assessing whether error "substantially swayed" verdict)
Malewicka v. [sic], 664 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2011) (presumption of constitutionality when forfeiture falls within congressional fine range; structuring can facilitate other crimes)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (deference to legislative judgments on appropriate punishment)