SANDERS v. UNITED STATES (2019)

[Unpublished]

Rodney Sanders appeals the district court’s ¹ denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 983(e) motion to set aside a civil forfeiture of property. He argues that he did not receive notice of the forfeiture proceeding and that the government failed to take “reasonable steps” to ensure he received notice. Id. § 983(e)(1)(A). We review the court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. See United States v. Crumble, 878 F.3d 656, 659 (8th Cir. 2018); United States v. Quintero, 648 F.3d 660, 665 (8th Cir. 2011).

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the government took “reasonable steps” to notify Sanders of the forfeiture proceeding, even if the notice did not reach him. 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1)(A); cf. Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 168–73, 122 S.Ct. 694, 151 L.Ed.2d 597 (2002) (describing the due-process requirements for notice of a forfeiture proceeding and stating that actual notice is not required). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.