United States v. Markentz Blanc
698 F. App'x 990
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Markentz Blanc was convicted of most counts in a drug-, firearm-, and identity-theft indictment and sentenced to 300 months. At sentencing he did not oppose forfeiture of two vehicles (Nissan Altima, Hyundai Genesis).
- District court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture including the two vehicles and $9,428; the Government published notice as required by Rule 32.2(b)(6). Defendant did not appeal the preliminary order.
- Four months after publication, Defendant filed a pro se Rule 41(g) motion seeking return of property on behalf of his girlfriend (Sabrina Merilia), alleging she was not notified and that the property was lawfully owned.
- The district court denied the Rule 41(g) motion; Defendant appealed the denial. The appellate court accepted jurisdiction over the March 22, 2016 denial but not over the earlier preliminary forfeiture order.
- The district court found no timely third-party claim by Merilia; the appellate court reviewed legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 41(g) motion for return of property should be granted | Blanc sought return of vehicles and currency (via Merilia) claiming lack of notice and lawful ownership | Property was subject to criminal forfeiture; Blanc lacked standing/clean hands and Merilia did not file a timely third-party claim | Denied — Blanc lacks clean hands; he agreed to forfeiture and was convicted; no timely third-party claim by Merilia |
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review denial of Rule 41(g) motion | Blanc timely appealed the March 22, 2016 order | Government argued appeal really attacked preliminary forfeiture (not reviewable) | Court had jurisdiction over the March 22 order under law-of-the-case; arguments targeting the preliminary order were not persuasive |
| Whether a third party (Merilia) can challenge forfeiture through Blanc’s Rule 41(g) motion | Blanc asserted Merilia’s interests via affidavit claiming lawful purchase and savings | Rules require Merilia to file a claim in ancillary proceeding under Rule 32.2(c) and §853(n); no record of such a timely claim | Third-party interest not before the court; failure to file timely claim forfeits interest; Blanc cannot press Merilia’s claim |
| Whether the timing of the preliminary forfeiture order (post-sentencing) invalidated the order per Petrie | Blanc argued Petrie invalidates post-sentencing preliminary forfeiture | Government relied on finality of proceedings and lack of timely third-party claim | Court declined to reach the preliminary-order challenge (no jurisdiction to review it here); substantive Rule 32.2 timing argument did not save Blanc’s Rule 41(g) motion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Howell, 425 F.3d 971 (11th Cir. 2005) (Rule 41(g) post-proceedings relief treated as equitable action; movant must show possessory interest and clean hands)
- United States v. Marion, 562 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2009) (ancillary proceedings and requirement that third parties timely file claims under Rule 32.2(c) and §853(n))
- United States v. Machado, 465 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2006) (equitable principle precluding return of criminal proceeds to a convicted defendant)
- United States v. Stinson, 97 F.3d 466 (11th Cir. 1996) (law-of-the-case doctrine and its limited exceptions)
- United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2002) (addressing timing of preliminary forfeiture orders in relation to sentencing)
- United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting changes in precedent; cited regarding limits on Machado)