United States v. Jackson
3:16-cr-00061
| S.D. Ohio | Apr 4, 2018Background
- Defendant Brandon Jackson was subject to a criminal forfeiture proceeding following conviction; a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture was entered July 18, 2017.
- The Preliminary Order listed monetary funds ($5,630.00) and numerous firearms, magazines, and ammunition (detailed by make, model, serial numbers, and round counts).
- The government published notice of the forfeiture on www.forfeiture.gov for at least 30 consecutive days beginning July 21, 2017; no direct written notice was sent because no potential claimant appeared to exist.
- No timely third‑party petitions or claims were filed contesting the forfeiture.
- The court found that Jackson had an interest in the listed property and that the government established the required nexus between the property and the offense.
- The court declared the Preliminary Order final, forfeited the listed property to the United States, vested clear title in the United States, authorized disposition of the property, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the Order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the listed currency, firearms, magazines, and ammunition are subject to criminal forfeiture | Property is traceable to or proceeds of the offense and therefore forfeitable under 21 U.S.C. § 853 and firearms/ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) | No timely petition or claim was filed contesting forfeiture; no substantive defense presented | The court found the requisite nexus and ordered forfeiture final; title vested in the United States |
| Whether notice complied with due process and statutory requirements | Publication on www.forfeiture.gov for ≥30 days satisfied notice to potential claimants when no identifiable claimant existed for direct notice | Defendant/challenger did not file any petition alleging inadequate notice | Court accepted publication as sufficient because no person reasonably appeared to be a potential claimant; no petitions were filed |
| Whether the United States may dispose of and obtain clear title to the property | Forfeiture statutes authorize condemnation and vesting of title in the U.S.; disposition may follow after final order | No opposing argument preserved in the record | Court ordered that all right, title, and interest are condemned and vested in the United States and authorized custodian to dispose |
Key Cases Cited
None.
