*1 visibly Essеntially, argues long. preg- was not sense. Geraci that be- detain us Geraci nant; indeed, herself did not Moody (including even Geraci had treated women cause shortly women) her co- know until before she told badly past, pregnant it must Moody manage- She did not tell workers. pregnant, have known that Geraci was be- ment, requested that and she the six Mends badly. cause she was treated This is flawed and co-workers to whom she disclosed her reasoning which warrants no discussion. pregnancy management. not tell remaining go to All of Geraci’s contentions that, argues told six Geraci because she given pretext the issue of our conclusion twenty preg- that out of co-workers she was prima that she has failed to make out a facie pregnancy a nant and that her became discrimination, pregnancy case of we need office,” topic “common in the discussion not discuss them. management it must have known before however, managers, Her terminated her. IV. disclaiming knowledge, filed declarations presented Geraci no evidence the con- find error in neither the district court’s We trary. deposed only Geraci one of the co- reasoning nor its conclusion that Geraci pregnancy, she told of her workers whom prima failed to state a facie case. We will manage- and he testified that he did not tell summary judgment. affirm therefore its that pregnant. ment she was Geraci this for trial on would have us remand ease speculation that one or
the sheer more highly people pеrson- she entrusted with
al violated her information confidence Moody management
that lied members knowledge. their lack of This is sim-
about
ply
genuine
insufficient to
a
issue of
create
America, Appellee,
UNITED STATES
Hedberg,
fact.
skie, Cir.1994), for the
proposition “pattern that a of discrimination” that defendant’s
and. evidence asserted non
discriminatory pretext, sup reason was
ports an inference defendant knew that pregnant. illogi
she was That contention is unsupported by
cal and that case. Fuentes, say pattern we did suрport
discrimination could inference
pretext, but did not hold evidence
pretext plaintiff’s prima out the facie makes Indeed, holding
case. no such would make *2 Thieman, Attorney,
Frederick W. Mary Houghton, McKeen Assistant U.S. At- PA, torney (argued), Pittsburgh, Appel- lee. Stark,
Shelley Acting Federal Public De- fender, Hackney, First Asst. Feder- W. Penn Defender, Gerlach, al Karen Sirianni Public (argued), Public Defender Asst. Federal PA, Pittsburgh, Appellants. GREENBERG, ROTH, Before: ROSENN, Judges. Circuit THE COURT OPINION OF ROSENN, Judge. Circuit circuit, novel, primary, and in this forfeiture, appeal civil issue this is whether 981(a)(1)(C), pursuant to consti- pur- for double tutes already poses, a court sentenced a when imprisonment payment and the defendant to pled Paris Francis Lundis restitution. District guilty in the United States Court Pennsylvania to one District of Western possession of count of unauthorized use and cards in violation of 18 U.S.C. credit (a)(3). In addition to a ten & years personally prison month sentence and three contends that served warrant release, supervised complaint the court ordered Lundis of arrest and for forfeiture $13,674.50 restitution, pay computers upon Allegheny the value of Lundis at the pieces computer equipment County February on several fraud- Jail *3 Further, timely computers to ulently filed claim the and obtained Lundis. complaint, along answer to the Government’s equipment court deemed the to be crime, proceed pauperis with a motion to in and thus to the Lundis’s forfeitable forma appointment pursuant and counsel. United States to 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(C). final The court issued a or- opposed request The Lundis’s Government 28,1995. der forfeiture on March proceed pauperis in to and his re- forma quest for It counsel. also filed motion to jurisdiction We conclude that we have and Lundis’s claim. motion to dismiss affirm. dismiss, the Government asserted that Lun- computers dis’s claim to the was defective I. required by it was not as because verified 21,1994, September pled guilty C(6)
On Lundis Supplemental Rule for Certain Admiral- charg- (“Rule to Count I of a four count C(6)”). indictment ty and Maritime Claims Lun- ing posses- him with unauthorized use and timely response opposition dis filed a in to in sion credit cards violation of 18 U.S.C. dismiss, the Government’s motion to admit- (a)(3). §§ and Lundis admitted ting that his claim was neither verified nor that he stole the cards and used them to served, properly asserting pro- but that the illegally purchase computers computer and pro cedural defects were due to his and se equipment. trial him The court sentenced prison status. The district court dismissed imprisonment, ten months and ordered that Judgment Lundis’s claim and entered a and pay he in restitution to the store 28, 1995, Final Order of Forfeiture on March computers. where he obtained the in favor of the United States. Throughout proceedings, At these Lundis sentеncing hearing, request- many pro filed documents se with the district keep ed that the court allow him to court, including Appeal.”3 light three “Notices of requirement of the court’s appeal Lundis filed motions for pay leave to he restitution.1 The Government pauperis appointment and for argued of coun- computers that the were forma court, granted crime, sel with this and this court Lundis’s and thus were to civil motions.4 pursuant 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(C).2 The court denied Lundis’s request possession property, stat- II.
ing computers that thе were forfeitable “as a jurisdictional The Government raises matter of law.” contending ap issues that Lundis has not 9, 1994,
On pealed December the Government in- from the final order forfeiture. We proceedings plenary juris stituted civil forfeiture questions rem have review over computers by filing Operat a verified diction. Anthuis v. Colt Indus. (3rd Cir.1992). complaint ing Corp., for forfeiture. The Government 981(a)(1)(C). computers 1. Lundis contends that the contain personal material such as music scores. The computers Government asserts that the contain attempted appeal 3. His first notice from the cards, information on various stolen credit (1) deny- district court’s March 1995 order: well as instructions on how to "clone” a cellular counsel; ing appointment Lundis’s motion for phone. (2) denying proceed Lundis’s motion to in forma (3) pauperis; dismissing Lundis's claim to provides, pertinent part, 2. Section 981 for the computers. civil forfeiture to the United States of: (a)(1)(C) Any property, personal, real which appeal first This court dismissed Lundis’s constitutes оr is derived from tracea- timely prosecute, ble failure to then vacated the dis- to a violation of Section ... 1029 ... of appeal. this title.... missal and reinstated fundament of Lundis’s claim to owner- Lundis’s dismissal of court's The district deny- computers obligation is his ship of the had the effect of claim to the the owners of the com- him from make restitution to standing, thus barred him ing puter equipment. This order of restitution order. Without the final forfeiture appealing from the district court. Both the court computers, Lundis came claim to the a colorable were aware of the challenge the forfeiture and the Government standing to lacked in the Thus, question, source of Lundis’s interest as a threshold proceedings. ownership. for his claim of properly the court basis must address whether would not have added to intervene the verification pro Lundis’s se motion denied authenticity petition. of Lundis’s We proceedings. the forfeiture error under therefore believe was *4 reject these circumstances to Lundis’s claim A. verificаtion, merely because of the absence of C(6) prop requires a claimant to Rule pro especially light in of Lundis’s se status to file a verified erty in a civil forfeiture C(6). any knowledge his lack of of Rule and pro The rule claim with the district court. ownership claim to With his colorable vides, part: in relevant computers, that Lundis had we believe (6) Answer; Interrogatories. and Claim standing challenge at least to the forfeiture that is the sub- The claimant Property v. proceedings. See United States a claim ject an action in rem shall file Rd., Livonia, F.2d at S. Livonia 889 4492 exe- days process has been within 10 after (2nd 1258, Cir.1989); also see United cuted, time as within such additional or $38,000 Currency, v. in United States States by court.... The may allowed be (11th Cir.1987) (“A 1538, 816 F.2d be on oath or solemn claim shall verified own the in order claimant need not interest affirmation, and shall state the forfeiture; standing its a to have to contest by claim- virtue of which the interest, possessory as a such lesser right and demands its restitution ant interest, standing.”). is sufficient for We do this action. defend may deny equitably Lun- not believe C(6) Supplemental Rule for Certain Admiral- standing actions have not dis where his added). (emphasis ty and Maritime Claims C(6). goals of Rule See United thwarted the n Afterthe Government initiated forfeiture Lot Located at 1 Street v. One Urban States duly proceedings, (1st Cir.1989); Lundis filed “Claim A-1, 994, 1001 Prop 885 F.2d ” pauperis Livonia, 1262; Bond and Affidavit Cost 889 F.2d at erty at S. informa computer Houseboat, in which he asserted that 774 F.2d 1982 Yukon Delta right- equipment the Government confiscated
fully belonged to him. This claim conformed
for failure to
Lundis’s clаim
To dismiss
every
except it lacked
respect
to the rules
“contra-
statement would
include
verified
a verification.
sense and
both old-fashioned common
dict[ ]
C(6)
require
purpose
is to
of Rule
admiralty principle that
time-honored
quickly
pos
as
to come forward as
claimants
in mari-
procedural practices
pleadings and
proceed
initiation of forfeiture
sible after the
liberally.”
applied
time actions should be
may
all
ings, so that the court
hear
interest
Lot,
885 F.2d at
Under
One Urban
dispute
parties and resolve the
without
ed
extraordinary circumstances we have
delay.
v. 1982Yukon Del
See United States
here,
inability
timely appeal from the
an
(9th
Houseboat,
1432,
Cir.
ta
disputed property because of
forfeiture of the
1985).
requires claims to
veri
The Rule
be
standing,
we will
denial
the erroneous
mini
upon
solemn affirmation to
fied
oath or
appeal.
allow the defendant
danger of false claims.
Id. We
mize the
goals.
importance of these
understand the
III.
ease, howеver,
of this
a verifica
On the facts
comput
Lundis,
below,
the forfeiture
would have
Whether
as we note
tion
Jeopardy
Double
Clause
violated the
superfluous.
ers
been
interesting question
subject
ple
times,
of law
had violated the Act 65
and thus the
Baird,
nary
review. See United States
contended
Government
he was
to a
(3rd
1213,
Cir.1995),
$130,000.
penalty
Halper,
cert.
than
de
more
—nied,
—,
909,
438-39, 109
U.S.
116 S.Ct.
133 U.S. at
S.Ct. at 1896-97.
(1996).
Halper
The district court
refused to
$130,000
impose
penalty, finding
the full
Although
Jeopardy
the Double
Clause
penalty
the full
would violate the Double
provides
person “subject
that no
for the
light
Halper’s previous
Clause
same
put
offence to be twice
Const,
punishment.
criminal
The district court de-
limb,”
life
amdt.
the Su
penalty
termined that
would constitute
preme
explained
that the
Court
Clause
pur-
unless it served a remedial
“protects against
three distinct abuses: a
pose.
serving
Sanctions
purpose
remedial
prosecution
second
for the same offense after
make the Government whole for such costs
acquittal;
prosecution
a second
for the same
detection, investigation
prosecution
conviction;
multiple punish
offense after
445, 449,
a criminal. See id. at
109 S.Ct. at
ments for the same offense.” See United
Halper
1902. The court in
found that
435, 440, 109
States v. Halper, 490 U.S.
penalty
“entirely
the amount of the
was
un-
1892, 1897,
(1989).
to
forfeiture
881(a)(6)
(a)(7).8
for-
Consequently,
punishing
instead of
the
§§
The defendants
pro-
feiting party,
illegal
forfeiture of
indictment
the
sought dismissal of their criminal
aircraft,
(4)
party may
including
used as a
to make a
conveyances,
ve-
that a
have
base
All
hicles,
used,
vessels,
are
or
which are
to
or
drag sale.
use,
transport,
any
or in
intended for
manner
sale,
transportation,
the
facilitate
to
881(a)(6) provides for the forfeiture of
Section
receipt, possession,
[con-
or concealment of
securities,
exchange
moneys,
etc. furnished in
all
substances].
trolled
substance,
or used to facilitate
controlled
881(a)(7),
drag
of the
laws. Section
violation
used,
(7)
property ...
or
All real
which is
8, provides for the forfei-
in footnote
discussed
used,
any
part,
in
or
intended to be
manner
Tilley
properly.
court in
deemed
of,
ture of real
commit,
to
or to facilitate the commission
proceeds
to be
of the
the
forfeited
subchapter....
all
a violation of this
Tilley, 18
at 297 n.
crime. See
defendants'
example,
these
the Government invokes
7. For
real estate
statutes to confiscate automobiles or
ceeds,
Second,
much
confiscation of
viewed in
like the
stolen
when
terms of the rea
robber,
money
merely
soning Tilley,
relationship
places
from a bank
between the
forfeited
and the
party
lawfully protected
underlying offense
that
in the
finan-
in this
identical
ease is
to that found
quo
enjoyed prior
he
cial status
$184,505.01.
proceeds
drug
Just like the
launching
illegal
his
scheme. This is not
trafficking,
proceeds
of credit
fraud
card
punishment
plain meaning
“within the
vary directly
severity
with the
of the crime:
the word.”
purchased
The more
credit
items
with stolen
omitted).
(citations
Id.
cards,
ultimately
the more
that will
already adopted Tilley’s
haveWe
rationale
$184,-
government.
be forfeited to the
controlling
this circuit
as the
law of
for civil
505.01,
(“[T]he.
the Ninth Circuit’s Accordingly, thé order of forfeiture of the 981(a)(1)(C).10 district court will be affirmed. SLOVITER, Judge, and Before: Chief interpretation Given .this MANSMANN, BECKER, STAPLETON, 981(a)(1)(C), forfei- it follows Lundis’s GREENBERG, SCIRICA, COWEN, computer equipment did not con- ture of his ALITO, NYGAARD, ROTH, LEWIS, purposes of the Dou- stitute SAROKIN, ROSENN, McKEE, Circuit court Jeopardy Clause. The district ble Judges. rejecting, Lundis’s committed no error double claim. REHEARING SUR PETITION FOR June B. rehearing petition for filed the forfeiture Lundis also asserts that Lundis, in the appellant, Paris Francis аbove Excessive computers violates the having submitted to captioned matter been Eighth Amendment. Fines Clause of judges participated in the decision of who questions interpretations are Constitutional all cir- court and to the other available this *8 Ep plenary of law regular review. judges cuit of the court active service, Partnership Corp., judge concurred Family v. Kmart and no who stein Cir.1994). rehearing, (3rd having and a decision asked circuit in majority judges the circuit Eighth prohibits ex Amendment having regular voted for active service bail, fines, and cruel cessive excessive banc, petition rehearing by the court in may only suc punishment. Lundis unusual rehearing is denied. challenging a viola ceed in the forfeiture as if the tion of the Excessive Fines Clause provision “punish constitutes Austin,
ment.” See Indeed, money rejection of "used facilitate” our seems both above, holding even § contrast, here: As discussed more warranted rests on To the extent that our offense. 981(a)(1)(C) By pure is a statute. logic applies proceeds, unique its status 981(a)(1)(A) covers “in- 981(a)(1)(C). strongly most offense, covers in” an volved