United States v. Blount

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30767
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BENJAMIN BLOUNT,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CR-20058-3
- - - - - - - - - -
February 21, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Benjamin Blount, federal prisoner #06674-035, appeals the
district court’s denial of his FED. R. CRIM. P. 41(e) motion for
return of property. Blount sought the return of currency taken
during a traffic stop in 1995 and the return of currency taken
during the search of his home in 1998. He avers that because the
Government referenced the currency seized as a result of the
traffic stop and the execution of the search warrant during his
federal drug conspiracy trial, the Government is responsible for
the return of the property. Blount also contends that because
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-30767
-2-
the conspiracy charge was the result of a joint task force
between state and federal law enforcement agencies from 1990 to
1995, the Government is responsible for the return of his
property.
Whether Blount’s motion is considered as a motion under FED.
R. CRIM. P. 41(e) or as a civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it
is without merit. See Clymore v. United States, 217 F.3d 370,
373 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Dean, 100 F.3d 19, 20 (5th
Cir. 1996). Blount is not entitled to the return of his property
pursuant to his federal claim because he has not identified the
appropriate party in his complaint. Blount’s property was seized
as the result of state action and/or was forfeited via
Louisiana’s forfeiture proceedings. Blount has failed to show
that the United States had any direct involvement in the seizure
and/or forfeiture of his property. The district court did not
err in denying Blount’s motion.
AFFIRMED.