United States v. One (1) Rolex Watch

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-21253
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ONE (1) ROLEX WATCH, Serial #A328055,
Defendant,
SIKAN ESSIEN,
Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CV-105
--------------------
June 18, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sikan Essien appeals the default judgment entered in favor of
the Government in this 18 U.S.C. § 981 civil forfeiture proceeding
against One Rolex Watch, serial #A328055. Essien argues that the
search of his residence and the seizure of the Rolex watch violated
his Fourth Amendment rights; the district court erred in holding
that he was collaterally estopped from challenging the seizure of
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-21253
-2-
the watch because he pleaded guilty to four counts of possession of
counterfeit checks; the Government was required to file a
forfeiture action within 90 days after a claim was filed for the
return of the seized property; and the Government did not present
any evidence showing that the watch was purchased with proceeds
derived from a federal crime. Because this forfeiture proceeding
commenced on August 22, 2000, prior to the August 23, 2000,
effective date of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA),
CAFRA is inapplicable to this case. See Pub. L. No. 106-185 § 21,
114 Stat. 202. Essien did not file a verified claim as required by
Rule C(6) of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and
Maritime Claims. Therefore, the district court did not err in
entering a default judgment in favor of the Government. See 18
U.S.C. § 981(b)(2); United States v. One 1988 Dodge Pickup, 959
F.2d 37, 42 n.6 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. $38,570 United
States Currency, 950 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.