Document Info

DocketNumber: 06-15966

Judges: Dubina, Wilson, Pryor

Filed Date: 7/9/2007

Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024

  •                                                           [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    JULY 9, 2007
    No. 06-15966                   THOMAS K. KAHN
    Non-Argument Calendar                  CLERK
    ________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 06-10024-CV-JLK
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ONE 28 FOOT CONTENDER MOTOR VESSEL
    bearing Florida Registration No. FL2160 NA,
    HIN JDJ25524G506, together with its tackle,
    apparel, gear and equipment,
    Defendant,
    ALEXANDER BAYOLO,
    Claimant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    _________________________
    (July 9, 2007)
    Before DUBINA, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant Alexander Bayolo, through counsel, appeals the district court’s
    judgment in an in rem forfeiture proceeding, pursuant to 
    8 U.S.C. § 1324
    (b) and 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1345
    , 1355 and 2461, against a 28-foot Contender motor boat, along
    with its tackle, apparel, gear, equipment, and inventory. On appeal, Bayolo argues
    that the district court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict, noting that
    the government failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
    boat had a substantial connection with the underlying criminal offense of alien
    smuggling.
    We review de novo the denial of a motion for directed verdict or judgment
    as a matter of law. See Hessen v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 
    915 F.2d 641
    , 644 (11th Cir.
    1990). Although the district court denied Bayolo’s motion for directed verdict,
    Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 was amended to replace the term “directed verdict” with
    “judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 (1991 Amendments). In
    conducting such a review, we consider all evidence and inferences drawn
    therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and the motion
    should be granted when the evidence presented is so one-sided that reasonable
    people could not arrive at a contrary verdict. Hessen, 
    915 F.2d at 644
    .
    2
    Conversely, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motion such that
    reasonable people, in the exercise of impartial judgment, might reach differing
    conclusions, then such a motion is due to be denied and the case is properly
    submitted to the jury. 
    Id.
    To obtain civil forfeiture, the government must establish, by a
    preponderance of evidence, “a substantial connection between the property and the
    offense.” 
    18 U.S.C. § 983
    (c)(1) and (3). The government “may use both
    circumstantial evidence and hearsay,” and the district court should evaluate the
    evidence presented with “a common sense view to the realities of normal life.”
    United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property, 
    941 F.2d 1428
    , 1440 (11th Cir.
    1991) (quotations omitted). “An innocent owner’s interest in property shall not be
    forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute.” 
    18 U.S.C. § 983
    (d)(1). In asserting
    such a defense to forfeiture, a claimant has the burden of proving that he is an
    innocent owner of the property by a preponderance of the evidence. 
    18 U.S.C. § 983
    (d)(1). An innocent owner does not know of the conduct giving rise to
    forfeiture. 
    18 U.S.C. § 983
    (d)(2)(A)(i).
    Directed verdicts are appropriate only where the evidence is so one-sided
    that no reasonable jury could reach a contrary conclusion. Hessen, 
    915 F.2d at 644
    . Here, the evidence presented, although circumstantial, was not so one-sided
    3
    in favor of Bayolo that it would make a directed verdict proper.
    The record demonstrates that the boat, which was registered to Bayolo, was
    intercepted by the Coast Guard on the evening of September 27, 2005. The boat
    did not have its navigation lights on and its fuel tank was nearly empty. The Coast
    Guard found two men onboard, along with “tools of the trade for smuggling
    vessels” including several canisters of gasoline, motor oil, and a section of garden
    hose. A subsequent search of the boat also revealed a handwritten list of
    coordinates to navigation points between Florida and Cuba. The next day, after
    speaking with one of the men apprehended on the boat, the Coast Guard conducted
    a search and found 21 people hiding in mangroves off the shore of North Key
    Largo. The two men on board Bayolo’s boat were eventually convicted of alien
    smuggling.
    In contrast, although Bayolo appeared to assert at trial that he was an
    “innocent owner” within the meaning of 
    18 U.S.C. § 983
    (d), he failed to raise such
    an argument on appeal and, accordingly, has abandoned it. See Allison v. McGhan
    Med. Corp., 
    184 F.3d 1300
    , 1317 n.17 (11th Cir. 1999) (“Issues that are not clearly
    outlined in an appellant’s initial brief are deemed abandoned.”). Even if we were
    to consider the argument, it would fail. Although Bayolo insisted that he did not
    know that his boat would be used in illegal activities, in light of the other evidence
    4
    in the record, the case in support of his claim did not present such one-sided
    evidence of innocent ownership that would make a directed verdict proper.
    Accordingly, because the evidence in the record, reviewed as a whole, was
    such that reasonable jurors could have reached different conclusions, we conclude
    that the government’s claim that the boat was substantially connected to alien
    smuggling was properly before the jury, and the district court did not err in
    denying Bayolo’s motion for a directed verdict.
    AFFIRMED.
    5