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

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1005
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KARAPET SHIMSHIRYAN,
Claimant - Appellant,
and
ONE 1998 TRACTOR, VIN1XKTDB9XXW17579; ONE
TRACTOR TRAILER, VIN1UYUS248XVU1614,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge.
(CA-03-33-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2004 Decided: December 7, 2004
Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Bragg, BRAGG LAW, PLC, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, R. Lucas
Hobbs, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
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 (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
- 3 -
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
- 4 -