Webb v. United States

D. Maryland

Webb v. United States

District Court, D. Maryland·Decided October 14, 2021·No. 1:18-cv-02125·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * * Civil No. CCB-18-2125 v. * * JAMES WEBB, JR. *******

MEMORANDUM James Webb, Jr., has filed a motion for return of property (approximately $22,000 in cash and three watches) seized during a search in connection with a narcotics prosecution that resulted in Webb’s conviction and incarceration. (CCB-15-0606, J&C, ECF 82). The cash and watches were then subject to civil forfeiture. As explained in the court’s Memorandum and Order issued April 21, 2020 (ECFs 13, 14), the motion is properly considered under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e), permitting a person whose property is forfeited to seek to set aside the forfeiture. Left open by the court’s earlier opinion was whether the government could provide evidence that it took reasonable steps to notify Webb, then detained at the Chesapeake Detention Facility, of the proposed forfeiture. The government has since submitted sufficient evidence, specifically through the affidavit of Captain Nina Rizer, (1) that it sent a certified letter, return receipt requested, to CDF; (2) that a prison official, T. Sally, signed for the letter; and (3) that mail delivery procedures existed at CDF that were reasonably calculated to ensure that the notice addressed to Webb would reach him. Gov’t. Supp. Resp. ECF 17, Affidavit 17-1; see Burman v. United States, 472 F. Supp. 2d 665, 667 (D. Md. 2007) (citing U.S. v. Minor, 228 F.3d. 352, 358 (4th Cir. 2000)). Webb was provided an opportunity to respond to the government’s supplemental response and affidavit, but he has not done so. Accordingly, and incorporating its earlier Memorandum Opinion, the court finds that the government has met its burden of showing it took reasonable steps to inform Webb of the forfeiture proceedings. Webb’s motion for return of property, construed as a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e) to set aside the forfeiture, will be denied. A separate Order follows.

10/14/21 /S/ Date Catherine C. Blake United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * * Civil No. CCB-18-2125 v. * * JAMES WEBB, JR. *******

MEMORANDUM James Webb, Jr., has filed a motion for return of property (approximately $22,000 in cash and three watches) seized during a search in connection with a narcotics prosecution that resulted in Webb’s conviction and incarceration. (CCB-15-0606, J&C, ECF 82). The cash and watches were then subject to civil forfeiture. As explained in the court’s Memorandum and Order issued April 21, 2020 (ECFs 13, 14), the motion is properly considered under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e), permitting a person whose property is forfeited to seek to set aside the forfeiture. Left open by the court’s earlier opinion was whether the government could provide evidence that it took reasonable steps to notify Webb, then detained at the Chesapeake Detention Facility, of the proposed forfeiture. The government has since submitted sufficient evidence, specifically through the affidavit of Captain Nina Rizer, (1) that it sent a certified letter, return receipt requested, to CDF; (2) that a prison official, T. Sally, signed for the letter; and (3) that mail delivery procedures existed at CDF that were reasonably calculated to ensure that the notice addressed to Webb would reach him. Gov’t. Supp. Resp. ECF 17, Affidavit 17-1; see Burman v. United States, 472 F. Supp. 2d 665, 667 (D. Md. 2007) (citing U.S. v. Minor, 228 F.3d. 352, 358 (4th Cir. 2000)). Webb was provided an opportunity to respond to the government’s supplemental response and affidavit, but he has not done so. Accordingly, and incorporating its earlier Memorandum Opinion, the court finds that the government has met its burden of showing it took reasonable steps to inform Webb of the forfeiture proceedings. Webb’s motion for return of property, construed as a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e) to set aside the forfeiture, will be denied. A separate Order follows.

10/14/21 /S/ Date Catherine C. Blake United States District Judge

Webb v. United States, (D. Md. 2021).

Pincite

Webb v. United States (Webb v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related