United States v. Veronica Ramirez , 698 F. App'x 332 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-55484
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-04465-DOC-
RNB
$30,464.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,
Defendant. MEMORANDUM*
v.
VERONICA ANA MARIA RAMIREZ,
Claimant-Appellant,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Veronica Ana Maria Ramirez appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in a civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
$30,464 in U.S. currency that was seized from Ramirez’s residence. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. United States v.
$133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 637 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because, in light of
the evidence submitted by the government and the facts properly deemed admitted
due to Ramirez’s failure to respond timely to the government’s requests for
admission, Ramirez failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether there was no substantial connection between the seized currency and
illegal drug activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1) (“[T]he burden of proof is on the
Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is
subject to forfeiture . . . .”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) (providing that a matter is
deemed admitted unless party serves timely answer or objection to request for
admission); Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“Unanswered requests for admissions may be relied on as the basis for granting
summary judgment.”); United States v. Currency, U.S. $42,500.00, 283 F.3d 977,
980 (9th Cir. 2002) (funds must be traceable to drug trafficking taking into account
all facts cumulatively); United States v. $22,474.00 in U.S. Currency, 246 F.3d
1212, 1217 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Evidence of a prior drug conviction is probative of
probable cause.”); United States v. $93,685.61 in U.S. Currency, 730 F.2d 571, 572
(9th Cir. 1984) (currency forfeitable where found in the same room as drug
2 15-55484
paraphernalia).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-55484