United States v. Twenty One Items Valued

First Circuit

United States v. Twenty One Items Valued

50 F. App'x 12

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedNovember 7, 2002

Docket01-2734

StatusPublished

This text of 50 F. App'x 12 (United States v. Twenty One Items Valued) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First 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. Twenty One Items Valued, 50 F. App'x 12 (1st Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As the government argues, claimant’s attempt to recover interest on funds and property which the government had seized when claimant was arrested but which were ultimately returned to him is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity as explained in a decision issued during the pendency of this appeal. Larson v. United States, 274 F.3d 643 (1st Cir.2001); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2465. The version of the statute in effect when this proceeding was commenced did not permit an award of any interest. Id. at 647. Although a new version of the statute now provides for the recovery of interest, the new version applies prospectively only. Id.

Claimant’s argument that we previously mandated an award of interest to him when we remanded the matter to the district court is based on a misapprehension of the remand order (which permitted the district court to explore anew the question of interest) and a misunderstanding of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Since sovereign immunity deprives the federal court of jurisdiction, it may be raised at any time during the proceedings regardless of prior orders in the case and regardless of a party’s failure to object on that ground. Id. at 648.

Claimant’s arguments regarding his motion for the return of an automobile which was not registered in his name, and his attempt to obtain sanctions against the government are frivolous.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated above.

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

PER CURIAM.

As the government argues, claimant’s attempt to recover interest on funds and property which the government had seized when claimant was arrested but which were ultimately returned to him is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity as explained in a decision issued during the pendency of this appeal. Larson v. United States, 274 F.3d 643 (1st Cir.2001); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2465. The version of the statute in effect when this proceeding was commenced did not permit an award of any interest. Id. at 647. Although a new version of the statute now provides for the recovery of interest, the new version applies prospectively only. Id.

Claimant’s argument that we previously mandated an award of interest to him when we remanded the matter to the district court is based on a misapprehension of the remand order (which permitted the district court to explore anew the question of interest) and a misunderstanding of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Since sovereign immunity deprives the federal court of jurisdiction, it may be raised at any time during the proceedings regardless of prior orders in the case and regardless of a party’s failure to object on that ground. Id. at 648.

Claimant’s arguments regarding his motion for the return of an automobile which was not registered in his name, and his attempt to obtain sanctions against the government are frivolous.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated above.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 F. App'x 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-twenty-one-items-valued-ca1-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack