Rodney Sanders v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: January 8, 2019
• Docket: 18-1286
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-1286 ___________________________

Rodney Lamont Sanders

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________

Submitted: December 26, 2018 Filed: January 8, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Sanders appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 983(e) motion to set aside a civil forfeiture of property. He argues that he did not receive

1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. notice of the forfeiture proceeding and that the government failed to take “reasonable steps” to ensure he received notice. Id. § 983(e)(1)(A). We review the court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. See United States v. Crumble, 878 F.3d 656, 659 (8th Cir. 2018); United States v. Quintero, 648 F.3d 660, 665 (8th Cir. 2011).

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the government took “reasonable steps” to notify Sanders of the forfeiture proceeding, even if the notice did not reach him. 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1)(A); cf. Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 168–73 (2002) (describing the due- process requirements for notice of a forfeiture proceeding and stating that actual notice is not required). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

-2-