United States v. Davenport
668 F.3d 1316
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Davenport pled guilty to a false-statement count; Muckle pled guilty to conspiracy-to-distribute cocaine.
- A POF was entered against Muckle for $214,980 seized from Davenport's safe deposit box.
- The government notified potential claimants and Davenport's attorney, who later filed a petition in May 2009.
- Davenport's petition was dismissed as untimely in April 2010; a final forfeiture order issued January 2011.
- Davenport appeals the POF challenge, the ancillary petition, and a Rule 60(b) request for relief.
- The district court's rulings were partially dismissed and partially affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge POF against another defendant | Davenport has standing as a third party | Codefendant’s POF challenges require ancillary relief only | Davenport lacking standing; appellate jurisdiction to challenge the POF |
| lacks; affirm on lack of standing | |||
| Timeliness of Davenport's ancillary petition | Direct written notice to attorney suffices; later website notice vindicates timeliness | Notice to Davenport's attorney was adequate, triggering 30-day deadline | Notice to Davenport's attorney adequate; petition untimely and properly dismissed |
| Relief under Rule 60(b)(1) for excusable neglect | Attorney's misinterpretation constitutes excusable neglect | Notice and law adequately alerted attorney; no excusable neglect | Rule 60(b)(1) relief denied; no excusable neglect shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Marion, 562 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2009) (ancillary forfeiture procedures govern third-party interests)
- Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29 (S. Ct. 1995) (third-party claims must be heard in § 853(n) ancillary proceedings)
- United States v. Gilbert, 244 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 2001) (codefendants treated as third parties for notice purposes in ancillary proceedings)
- Andrews v. United States, 530 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir. 2008) (third parties cannot relitigate forfeiture merits in POF proceedings)
- Porchay v. United States, 533 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2008) (former codefendant cannot relitigate forfeiture against another defendant)
- Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (S. Ct. 2002) (due process requires reasonably calculated notice to interested parties)
- Pioneer Investment Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380 (S. Ct. 1993) (excusable neglect considerations in complex deadline situations)