United States v. Alvarez-Estevez
671 F. App'x 834
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Alvarez-Estevez pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a detectable amount of heroin.
- He moved under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) for return of a black Infiniti seized in the investigation.
- The Drug Enforcement Administration Report of Investigation (ROI), submitted by Alvarez-Estevez, showed the Infiniti was turned over to the New Jersey State Police for forfeiture.
- The District Court denied the 41(g) motion, reasoning that Rule 41(g) is an equitable remedy unavailable where an adequate remedy at law exists (NJ forfeiture proceedings) and a court can order return only of property in the government’s possession.
- Alvarez-Estevez argued on appeal that the Government had to prove it could not procure return of the car and that the “arm of the prosecution” doctrine required the Government to seek the car’s return from New Jersey.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the denial, rejecting both arguments and finding no plain error in declining to extend the arm-of-the-prosecution doctrine to Rule 41(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of Rule 41(g) relief | Alvarez-Estevez argued Rule 41(g) should compel return of the Infiniti | Government: NJ forfeiture proceedings are an adequate remedy; Infiniti not in federal possession | Court: Rule 41(g) unavailable because adequate legal remedy exists and court can only order return of property in government hands — affirm denial |
| Requirement of evidentiary accounting by Government | Alvarez-Estevez contended the Government must prove it cannot procure return | Government relied on ROI showing transfer to NJ State Police; no further proof required | Court: District reasonably relied on ROI; no abuse of discretion in not demanding further accounting |
| Applicability of "arm of the prosecution" doctrine to Rule 41(g) | Alvarez-Estevez urged the doctrine requires federal prosecutors to retrieve the car from state police | Government: doctrine governs Brady-type disclosure obligations, not property-return under Rule 41(g) | Court: No precedent extends the doctrine to Rule 41(g); failure to raise below reviewed for plain error and not shown — no relief |
| Plain-error review for unpreserved argument | Alvarez-Estevez argued entitlement despite not raising issue below | N/A | Court: Applied plain-error standard and declined to find error where law is unsettled |
Key Cases Cited
- De Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2006) (Rule 41(g) is an equitable remedy available only when no adequate remedy at law exists)
- United States v. Zaleski, 686 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review for equitable relief; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Diaz v. United States, 517 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2008) (district court may order return only of property in government hands)
- United States v. Taylor, 816 F.3d 12 (2d Cir. 2016) (plain-error review of unpreserved issues)
- United States v. Bastian, 770 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 2014) (no plain error where operative legal question is unsettled)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (arm-of-the-prosecution doctrine in the Brady context)
- United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006) (assessing who qualifies as an arm of the prosecutor)
- In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- In re City of New York, 607 F.3d 923 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussion of abuse of discretion term of art)