United States v. One 1998 Tractor

Fourth Circuit

United States v. One 1998 Tractor

117 F. App'x 863

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 2004

Docket04-1005

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 117 F. App'x 863 (United States v. One 1998 Tractor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. One 1998 Tractor, 117 F. App'x 863 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Karapet Shimshiryan appeals the district court’s order forfeiting his interest in the tractor portion of a tractor-trailer vehicle to the Government. Because we conclude that the forfeiture is not grossly disproportional to Shimshiryan’s crime, we affirm.

Shimshiryan does not contest that the tractor was an instrumentality of his possession and transport of contraband cigarettes and is therefore forfeitable, but argues that forfeiture of the tractor is excessive under the Eighth Amendment. He asserts that his crime is similar to the currency reporting offense committed by the defendant in United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 118 S.Ct. 2028, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998), and that the forfeiture of his tractor is similarly unconstitutional. We review a district court’s determination that a forfeiture is not excessive under the Eighth Amendment de novo. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 336-37. To determine if a forfeiture is excessive, we “compare the forfeiture to the gravity of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(g)(2) (2000). If the amount of the forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense, it is unconstitutional. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 333. The party challenging the forfeiture bears the burden of demonstrating that it is excessive. United States v. Ahmad, 213 F.3d 805, 813 (4th Cir.2000); 18 U.S.C. § 983(g)(3) (2000).

We have conducted the required de novo review of the evidence before the district court and conclude that the district court correctly found that forfeiture of the tractor was not grossly disproportional to Shimshiryan’s crime. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Karapet Shimshiryan appeals the district court’s order forfeiting his interest in the tractor portion of a tractor-trailer vehicle to the Government. Because we conclude that the forfeiture is not grossly disproportional to Shimshiryan’s crime, we affirm.

Shimshiryan does not contest that the tractor was an instrumentality of his possession and transport of contraband cigarettes and is therefore forfeitable, but argues that forfeiture of the tractor is excessive under the Eighth Amendment. He asserts that his crime is similar to the currency reporting offense committed by the defendant in United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 118 S.Ct. 2028, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998), and that the forfeiture of his tractor is similarly unconstitutional. We review a district court’s determination that a forfeiture is not excessive under the Eighth Amendment de novo. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 336-37. To determine if a forfeiture is excessive, we “compare the forfeiture to the gravity of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(g)(2) (2000). If the amount of the forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense, it is unconstitutional. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 333. The party challenging the forfeiture bears the burden of demonstrating that it is excessive. United States v. Ahmad, 213 F.3d 805, 813 (4th Cir.2000); 18 U.S.C. § 983(g)(3) (2000).

We have conducted the required de novo review of the evidence before the district court and conclude that the district court correctly found that forfeiture of the tractor was not grossly disproportional to Shimshiryan’s crime. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 F. App'x 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-one-1998-tractor-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack