United States v. Claridy ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7473
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY LEE CLARIDY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00244-RDB-1)
Submitted: March 15, 2010 Decided: March 30, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Lee Claridy, Appellant Pro Se. Philip S. Jackson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Lee Claridy appeals the district court order
denying his motion for return of property. Claridy argues on
appeal that the notice of the forfeiture was not reasonably
calculated to notify him of the administrative forfeiture
proceedings. For the reasons that follow, we vacate and remand
for further proceedings.
Claridy contends that the Government failed to serve
him with notice of forfeiture. The Government may, without
resort to judicial proceedings, declare forfeiture of property
that is otherwise subject to criminal forfeiture and worth less
than $500,000. See 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a) (2006); 21 U.S.C. § 881
(2006); see also United States v. Minor, 228 F.3d 352, 354 (4th
Cir. 2000).
Prior to forfeiture, the Government must publish
notice of its intention to declare forfeiture of the seized
property, as well as provide written notice to interested
parties. 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a). Such notice is necessary in
order to give the individuals whose property interests are at
stake an opportunity to be heard. See Dusenbery v. United
States, 534 U.S. 161, 167 (2002). Notice is adequate if it is
“reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise
interested parties of the pendency of the action.” Minor, 228
F.3d at 357 (internal quotation omitted). The Government must
2
act “desirous of actually informing” the property owner of the
impending forfeiture. Id. at 358. In most cases, the
Government can meet its burden by showing that: (1) it “sent a
certified letter, return receipt requested, to the facility at
which the prisoner was being housed,” (2) a prison official
signed the return receipt, and (3) mail delivery procedures at
that facility were reasonably calculated to ensure that the
notice would reach the inmate and would be accepted only where
the inmate was actually present. Id.
With these standards in mind, we find that the
Government has not shown that its notice to Claridy was
adequate. In its response to Claridy’s motion, the Government
demonstrated that it sent a certified letter to the Wicomico
County Detention Center, where Claridy was housed, and that
someone at the facility signed the signature block accepting
delivery of the letter. However, the Government submitted no
evidence to show that the signatory was a prison official or
that the mail delivery procedures at the Wicomico County
Detention Center were reasonably calculated to ensure that the
notice would reach Claridy.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order
denying relief on the motion for return of property and remand
for a renewed determination of whether Claridy received adequate
3
notice.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
*
In his informal brief, Claridy asserts that the district
court abused its discretion by permitting the Government to
supplement its response to the motion for return of property.
We find this claim to be without merit.
4