United States v. Anton Lemar Dames

Case: 16-16195 Date Filed: 09/07/2017 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16195
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20796-DLG-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTON LEMAR DAMES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 7, 2017)
Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-16195 Date Filed: 09/07/2017 Page: 2 of 3
Anton Dames appeals the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion for the return of two vehicles seized by the
Government. After review, 1 we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), a person aggrieved by an
unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may
move for the property’s return. The person from whom the property was seized is
presumed to have a right to its return, and the Government must demonstrate that it
has a legitimate reason to retain the property. United States v. Potes Ramirez, 260
F.3d 1310, 1314 n.8 (11th Cir. 2001).
The Government has advocated inconsistent positions throughout Dames’
criminal proceedings as to whether it forfeited the vehicles. During Dames’
sentencing hearing, the Government informed the district court that it had seized
one of the two vehicles in dispute, but not the other. In its response to Dames’
motion below and in its brief before this Court, however, the Government has
insisted that the United States did not seize either vehicle. Additionally, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Form FD-302 completed for the search of
Dames’ residence states that both vehicles were seized by the FBI. As such,
Dames has demonstrated that both vehicles were originally seized by the FBI.
1
We review a district court’s denial of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(g) motion
for return of property de novo. United States v. Potes Ramirez, 260 F.3d 1310, 1314 n.8 (11th
Cir. 2001). We also review a district court’s determination that it lacks jurisdiction to exercise
equitable jurisdiction de novo. See id.
2
Case: 16-16195 Date Filed: 09/07/2017 Page: 3 of 3
Therefore, it appears the Government, at least at some point, had possession of the
vehicles and intended to forfeit them, and, consequently, the Government has not
met its burden of demonstrating that it has a legitimate reason to retain the
vehicles. See Potes Ramirez, 260 F.3d at 1314. Therefore, we vacate the district
court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3