United States v. Donahue
3:11-cr-00033
M.D. Penn.Sep 27, 2017Background
- Defendant Joseph Donahue was arrested on January 20, 2011; $7,876.29 in cash was seized from his person.
- In September 2015 Donahue was convicted in this case on four counts and later sentenced to 46 months imprisonment and ordered to pay a $400 special assessment; no other monetary penalties were imposed in this case.
- Donahue previously was convicted in a 2008 case and ordered to pay $325,414.67 in restitution, which the Government says remains unpaid.
- Donahue filed a Rule 41(g) motion seeking return of the seized $7,876.29 after conclusion of criminal proceedings.
- The Government opposed full return, not because it needs the funds in this case, but because it seeks to apply the seized funds toward Donahue’s outstanding restitution from the unrelated 2008 case.
- The court concluded the Government may not divert seized funds to satisfy restitution in an unrelated case, but applied $400 of the seized funds to the special assessment owed in this case and ordered the balance returned to Donahue via the Clerk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether seized cash must be returned after conclusion of proceedings | Gov't: may retain funds to satisfy Donahue's unpaid restitution from unrelated 2008 case | Donahue: Rule 41(g) return of seized funds now that proceedings have ended | Court: After proceedings, presumption favors return; gov't must justify retention; here retention to satisfy unrelated restitution is not permitted |
| Whether district court can transfer seized funds to satisfy restitution in an unrelated case | Gov't: restitution order from 2008 creates entitlement/lien; funds should be applied to that restitution | Donahue: funds not subject to transfer for unrelated restitution; seeks return | Court: Following Third Circuit precedent, the district court lacks statutory authority to divert seized funds to pay restitution in an unrelated case |
| Whether Government may keep funds because it is a common party in both cases | Gov't: common prosecution role and §3613 lien support applying funds | Donahue: Government is not the victim and cannot use its prosecutorial position to compensate private victims in another case | Court: Government cannot use its prosecution role to channel funds to private victims of an unrelated case; §3663/§3613 do not authorize transfer here |
| Proper disposition of seized funds given the $400 special assessment in this case | Gov't: did not contest using funds for assessment here | Donahue: accepts payment of assessment but seeks remainder returned | Court: $400 applied to the special assessment; remaining $7,476.29 to be deposited with Clerk and returned to Donahue by check upon receipt of address |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Albinson, 356 F.3d 278 (3d Cir. 2004) (seized property must be returned after conclusion of proceedings unless contraband or forfeited)
- United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 1999) (government bears burden to justify retention of property after proceedings end)
- United States v. Bein, 214 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 2000) (procedural posture and standards for Rule 41(g) motions)
- United States v. Craig, [citation="359 F. App'x 289"] (3d Cir. 2009) (district court lacks authority to transfer seized funds to facilitate restitution payment in an unrelated case)