United States v. Vasquez-Garcia
663 F. App'x 620
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- In June 2009 ATF seized four firearms and ammunition from Rito Vasquez-Garcia and initiated administrative forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d).
- ATF sent notice of the right to contest and published notice in the Wall Street Journal on July 2, 9, and 16, 2009.
- A related criminal indictment was filed February 10, 2010, later dismissed without prejudice; the criminal case closed March 18, 2015.
- Vasquez-Garcia filed a Petition for Remission or Mitigation on August 24, 2015; ATF denied it because the property had been forfeited.
- On December 2, 2015, he moved in district court to set aside the 2009 administrative forfeiture claiming innocent-owner status and alleging language/skill barriers; the district court denied the motion as untimely under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(3) and denied IFP on appeal as legally frivolous.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding the motion was filed after the five-year limitations period and rejecting tolling arguments for lack of supporting facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to set aside an administrative forfeiture is timely under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(3) | Vasquez-Garcia argued he is an innocent owner (pointing to dismissal of indictment) and sought return of property | Government argued administrative remedy is exclusive and the five-year limitations period from final publication bars the motion | Motion untimely: published notices July 2009 made the deadline July 17, 2014; motion filed Dec 2, 2015 — barred by § 983(e)(3) |
| Whether equitable tolling saves the untimely filing | Vasquez-Garcia alleged inability to raise objections due to lack of skills and English proficiency | Government asserted no basis for tolling; no facts showing diligent pursuit or extraordinary circumstances | Equitable tolling not supported: plaintiff alleged no facts demonstrating diligence or extraordinary circumstances, so tolling denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Shigemura, 664 F.3d 310 (10th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for legal questions in motions for return of seized property)
- United States v. Tinajero-Porras, [citation="378 F. App'x 850"] (10th Cir. 2010) (18 U.S.C. § 983(e) is the exclusive remedy for recovery of administratively forfeited property)