United States v. WINTERS
2:19-cr-00062
| W.D. Pa. | Apr 20, 2020Background
- Defendant Brandon Winters was charged in a multi-defendant drug conspiracy and related possession counts; the Indictment included a forfeiture allegation for currency and the Government later added a 2012 Porsche and 2007 Nissan.
- Winters pled guilty and agreed to forfeit $250,138.91, the Porsche, and the Nissan; the court entered a preliminary criminal forfeiture order as to Winters.
- The FBI administratively forfeited $228,832; $21,306.91 remained subject to the criminal forfeiture.
- The Government mailed §853(n) notice to potential third-party claimants: Sheela Brown (Porsche) and Latisha Humphries (the $21,306.91), and both signed for receipt.
- Brown and Humphries filed motions styled as Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) requests (also referencing §853(n)) seeking return of the Porsche and the currency, respectively.
- The Government opposed, arguing Rule 41(g) is unavailable because an adequate remedy exists via the criminal forfeiture/§853(n) process and that the filed “petitions” fail §853(n)(3)’s strict pleading/signature requirements; the court denied Rule 41(g) relief and denied without prejudice any §853(n) relief for noncompliance and timing concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of Rule 41(g) relief | Brown/Humphries: seek return of property as rightful owners via Rule 41(g) | Gov’t: Rule 41(g) is equitable and unavailable where an adequate remedy at law exists (criminal forfeiture/§853(n)) | Denied under Rule 41(g) — adequate remedy at law exists |
| Sufficiency of filings as §853(n) petitions | Brown/Humphries: motions should be treated as §853(n) petitions to contest forfeiture | Gov’t: filings fail §853(n)(3) — not signed under penalty of perjury and lack detail about nature/timing of claimed interest | Denied without prejudice for failure to comply with §853(n)(3) strict pleading/signature requirements |
| Timing of ancillary §853(n) hearing | Claimants implicitly seek immediate adjudication | Gov’t: §853(n) ancillary proceedings (and Rule 32.2 procedures) occur after guilty plea/trial and preliminary forfeiture order; proceedings still ongoing as to co-defendants | Court noted the §853(n) scheme’s timing; relief premature until procedural prerequisites satisfied; claimants may refile compliant petitions at the proper time |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. United States, 692 F.3d 550 (6th Cir. 2012) (Rule 41(g) is an equitable remedy not available when an adequate remedy at law exists)
- United States v. Lamid, [citation="663 F. App'x 319"] (5th Cir. 2016) (courts require strict compliance with §853(n)(3) signature requirement to deter false claims)
- United States v. Klemme, 894 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (E.D. Wis. 2012) (dismissing claim for failure to sign under penalty of perjury and for missing acquisition details)
- United States v. Burge, 829 F. Supp. 2d 664 (C.D. Ill. 2011) (dismissing third-party claim not signed under penalty of perjury)
- United States v. Ginn, 799 F. Supp. 2d 645 (E.D. La. 2010) (pro se petition dismissed for failure to file under penalty of perjury)
- United States v. Singleton, 867 F. Supp. 2d 564 (D. Del. 2012) (Rule 41(g) inappropriate where an adequate legal remedy exists)
- Sunrise Academy v. United States, 791 F. Supp. 2d 200 (D.D.C. 2011) (§853(n) and Rule 32.2 provide for a post-conviction ancillary hearing; hearing is properly held after conclusion of criminal proceedings and a preliminary forfeiture order)