United States v. Rivas-Cristales

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Rivas-Cristales

88 F. App'x 978

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 8, 2004

Docket03-2891

StatusUnpublished

This text of 88 F. App'x 978 (United States v. Rivas-Cristales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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. Rivas-Cristales, 88 F. App'x 978 (8th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Carlos Alberto Rivas-Cristales, who was sentenced on drug charges, appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his Federal Rule *979 of Criminal Procedure 41 motion for return of $2,600 and handguns seized during a search of his residence. The handguns were destroyed after Mr. Rivas-Cristales’s trial when no claim was made for their return, and the currency was forfeited to the United States after no claim was made for it during administrative forfeiture proceedings. The district court summarily denied the motion finding that it was untimely and that the administrative forfeiture of the currency was proper and lawful. On appeal, Mr. Rivas-Cristales challenges, inter alia, the legality of the search and the forfeiture proceedings.

After careful review of the record, we conclude the district court properly denied the Rule 41 motion as Mr. Rivas-Cristales was not entitled to possession of the seized property at issue. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g) (return of seized property); United States v. Felici, 208 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir.2000) (convicted felon not entitled to return of firearms), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1201, 121 S.Ct. 1209, 149 L.Ed.2d 123 (2001); Muhammed v. Drug Enforcement Agency, Asset Forfeiture Unit, 92 F.3d 648, 652 & n. 4 (8th Cir.1996) (Rule 41 may not be used to attack antecedent civil forfeitures). We also conclude Mr. RivasCristales’s due process challenge to the administrative forfeiture proceedings is meritless. See Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 170, 172-73, 122 S.Ct. 694, 151 L.Ed.2d 597 (2002) (actual notice not required in administrative forfeiture proceeding; due process requires no more than that government’s action be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise [petitioner] of the pendency of the action”; use of certified mail addressed to petitioner at penitentiary, as notice of pendency of cash forfeiture, was “clearly acceptable” (quoted case omitted)).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

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

PER CURIAM.

Carlos Alberto Rivas-Cristales, who was sentenced on drug charges, appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his Federal Rule *979 of Criminal Procedure 41 motion for return of $2,600 and handguns seized during a search of his residence. The handguns were destroyed after Mr. Rivas-Cristales’s trial when no claim was made for their return, and the currency was forfeited to the United States after no claim was made for it during administrative forfeiture proceedings. The district court summarily denied the motion finding that it was untimely and that the administrative forfeiture of the currency was proper and lawful. On appeal, Mr. Rivas-Cristales challenges, inter alia, the legality of the search and the forfeiture proceedings.

After careful review of the record, we conclude the district court properly denied the Rule 41 motion as Mr. Rivas-Cristales was not entitled to possession of the seized property at issue. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g) (return of seized property); United States v. Felici, 208 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir.2000) (convicted felon not entitled to return of firearms), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1201, 121 S.Ct. 1209, 149 L.Ed.2d 123 (2001); Muhammed v. Drug Enforcement Agency, Asset Forfeiture Unit, 92 F.3d 648, 652 & n. 4 (8th Cir.1996) (Rule 41 may not be used to attack antecedent civil forfeitures). We also conclude Mr. RivasCristales’s due process challenge to the administrative forfeiture proceedings is meritless. See Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 170, 172-73, 122 S.Ct. 694, 151 L.Ed.2d 597 (2002) (actual notice not required in administrative forfeiture proceeding; due process requires no more than that government’s action be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise [petitioner] of the pendency of the action”; use of certified mail addressed to petitioner at penitentiary, as notice of pendency of cash forfeiture, was “clearly acceptable” (quoted case omitted)).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 F. App'x 978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rivas-cristales-ca8-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack