United States v. Omar Alvarez
710 F.3d 565
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- A.A. is the minor daughter of Omar Alvarez, whose conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine led to forfeiture of his property interests.
- The South Fourth Street property was deeded to A.A. in 2001, though the family had not lived there for over a decade when the conspiracy began.
- A Preliminary Order of Forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853 was issued on January 28, 2010, with notices posted and served to A.A. and her mother.
- A.A.’s mother filed a claim on April 26, 2010, asserting an interest under § 853(n) based on the 2001 deed.
- The district court granted the government’s motions and dismissed A.A.’s claim on November 17, 2011, finalizing a Final Judgment on December 9, 2011.
- The court held that A.A. was neither a bona fide purchaser nor a legal interest holder under § 853(n) and could not show timely petition rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.A.’s claim was timely under § 853(n)(2). | A.A. argues a minor tolling rule should apply to the filing deadline. | The thirty-day deadline is fixed; no tolling for minors. | Untimely; no minority tolling recognized; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether proper notice and service satisfied due process requirements for triggering the 853(n) window. | Notice should be construed to favor timely filing by minors. | Notice was reasonably calculated to notify claimants; due process satisfied. | Notice and service were adequate; due process satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process notice requires reasonably calculated notice)
- Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (U.S. 2002) (due process limits on notice adequacy)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (procedural requirements in pleadings)
- Palmer v. Waxahachie Indep. Sch. Dist., 579 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 2009) (case authority on notice and forfeiture timing)
- Gibson v. Texas Dep’t of Ins., 700 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 2012) (notice and procedural rules in agency actions)
- United States v. Dunigan, 555 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2009) (agency forfeiture procedures and notice standards)
- Wilson ex rel. Wilson v. Gunn, 403 F.3d 524 (8th Cir. 2005) (minor tolling and exceptions to limitations periods)
- Pacheco v. Serendensky, 393 F.3d 348 (2d Cir. 2004) (limitations and tolling considerations in civil actions)