United States v. Martin
662 F.3d 301
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- A large drug trafficking operation supplied drugs throughout DC, Maryland, and Virginia; Appellants were indicted May 5, 2004 and arrested June 1, 2004.
- Following arrests, the government seized assets under civil forfeiture warrants and initiated civil forfeiture proceedings.
- By January 2005, a fourth superseding indictment included criminal forfeiture allegations, so both civil and criminal forfeiture actions proceeded simultaneously.
- CAFRA created a 90-day window for the government to act (file forfeiture, indict with preservation steps, or return property); if it failed, property must be promptly released.
- Martin argued her civil-forfeiture claim was timely and that the government failed to act within 90 days; the district court denied her Rule 41(g) motion and the government later sought criminal seizure warrants.
- forfeiture hearings occurred Nov-Dec 2006; the district court indicated it would enter a modified preliminary order regarding joint and several liability; judgments were entered Jan 5–16, 2007; final forfeiture order issued June 14, 2007 but was not amended into the judgments; Appellants moved to vacate in April 2010, leading to this appeal affirming the criminal forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-trial civil forfeiture actions invalidate later criminal forfeiture. | Martin contends civil forfeiture violated CAFRA, invalidating later criminal forfeiture. | The government’s independent evidence supports criminal forfeiture regardless of any civil-seizure issues. | No; vacancy denied; independent evidence supports criminal forfeiture. |
| Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction to order criminal forfeiture after sentencing due to Rule 32.2 deadlines. | Appellants argue missed Rule 32.2(d) deadlines void forfeiture orders and amended judgments. | The deadline is a time-related directive, not a jurisdictional bar, and notice plus ongoing hearings support enforcement. | Rule 32.2 deadline is time-related; district court did not lack jurisdiction; affirm forfeiture. |
| Whether the 2007 and 2010 forfeiture orders must be vacated due to missed sentencing-notice issues under Dolan. | Dolan requires vacatur when a sentencing court failed to finalize forfeiture at sentencing. | Dolan applies; however, the record shows notice and hearings; penalties still valid. | Dolan framework applied; not vacating forfeiture orders; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 607 (2010) (deadline in forfeiture context; notice suffices for amount but not for existence of penalty; time-related directive)
- United States v. Morgan, 224 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for criminal forfeiture; nexus and proof requirements)
- INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984) (unlawful seizure does not automatically bar forfeiture if independent proof supports it)
- United States v. Pierre, 484 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2007) (forfeiture validity despite issues with initial seizure)