United States v. $293,316, No. 05-6522 (2d Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

05-6522-cv United States v. $293,316 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2006 (Argued: April 18, 2007 Decided: August 10, 2007) Docket No. 05-6522-cv -----------------------------------------------------x United States, Plaintiff-Appellee, -- v. -Mohammad Khan, Akbar Khan, Muhammad Room, Montaz, Humayyum, John Patrick Donohue, as attorney for Khista Bacha, Amir Amaan, Dor Amaan, Bacha Khan, Ali Sher, Liaqat Ali, Sami Ur-Rahman, Said Ur Rahman, Gul Bacha, Bahroz Khan, Rahman Ali, Hanifa, Abdul Samad Khan, Aftab Ahmed, Sultan Zaib, Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Rashid Ahmed, Barakat Khwaja, Haroon Rasheed, Muzzafer Khan, Aftab Ud Din, Aziz Ur Rahman, also known as Azizullah, Imran Mateen, also known as Shakoor, Fazal Bacha, Rashid Iqbal, Muhammad Rahman, Nadar Shah, Muhammad Khan, Rahman Zaib, Ali Haider, Qadar Shab, Khalid Bacha, Amir Hamza, Abdul Kalam, also known as Humayyun, Arsala Khan, Muzaffar Khan, M. Khalid Farooqi, Muhammad Zahir, Ibn E. Amin, Muhammad Zaib, Shaffi Ullah, Ali Sher Khan, Bahadar Sher Khan, Ali Khan, Rafiq Ahmed, Alam Gir, Imran Matin, Samieur Rahman, M.A. Yeem, Mozafar Khan, Habib Ur Rehman, Sher Rahman, Badshah Amin, Rasheed Ahmed, Shams Ur Rahman, Muhammad Arifkhan, Noor Mohammad, Dil Aram Jan, Shafiullah, Mohammed Zeb, Ghulm Rahman, Fazal Rahman, Mohammad Room, Zahir Shah, Mohammad Amin, Sher Khan, Mohammad Shoeb, Qadar Shah, Iqbal Sayed, Claimants-Appellants, $293,316 in United States Currency, More or Less, and all Proceeds Traceable Thereto Seized From Ali Sher Khan, $187,155 in United States Currency, More or Less, and all Proceeds Traceable thereto Seized from Akbar Ali Khan, $35,112 in United States Currency, More or Less, and all Proceeds Traceable thereto -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Seized from Fazal Subhan, Defendants, Fazal Subhan, Haroon Khan, Mohammad Khan, Sami Ullah, Diaz Ali Shah, Amir Bahadur, Rohmai Khan, Khan Haroon, Sqbal Syed, Mian Rahim Shah, Fazal Rehman, Rehmat Ali, Ali Rehman Seth, Tajul Malook, Mohammad Ishaq, Malik Sardar, Iqbal Ahmed, Mohammad Khan, Claimants. -----------------------------------------------------x B e f o r e : WALKER, STRAUB and B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges. 16 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court 17 for the Eastern District of New York (Jack B. Weinstein, Judge) 18 denying Appellants application for attorney s fees. 19 AFFIRMED. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 DAVID B. SMITH, English & Smith (John P. Donohue, Kittredge, Donley, Elson, Fullem & Emblick, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, on the brief), Alexandria, VA, for Claimants-Appellants. LAURA D. MANTELL, Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York (Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney, Steven Kim and Kathleen A. Nandan, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), Brooklyn, NY, for PlaintiffAppellee. JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Circuit Judge: The expression you can take that to the bank connotes the certainty and reliability of the banking system. -2- This long- 1 running dispute arises out of the disposition of several hundred 2 thousand dollars that nearly eighty Pakistanis (the contributor 3 claimants )1 wished to transfer from New York to Pakistan. 4 problems arose from their decision not to entrust their funds to 5 the international banking system but rather to three couriers. 6 The couriers, who were also carrying some of their own money, 7 were apprehended by the U.S. Customs Outbound Currency Team 8 ( Customs ) as they were about to board a flight to Pakistan and 9 were subsequently convicted under the bulk cash smuggling Their 10 provision of the USA PATRIOT Act. 11 America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and 12 Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 13 115 Stat. 272. 14 District of New York (Jack B. Weinstein, Judge) concluded that 15 the government could forfeit 50% of the funds owned by the 16 couriers (the convicted claimants ) without violating the 17 Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. 18 $293,316 in U.S. Currency, 349 F. Supp. 2d 638 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). 19 As for the contributor claimants, it took them roughly three 20 years to recover the money they had dispatched on what they had 21 believed would be an overnight flight. 22 1 2 3 See Uniting and Strengthening The United States District Court for the Eastern United States v. Two attorneys, John P. Donohue and David B. Smith, who 1 The convention in this case has been to refer to these individuals as contributor claimants, a convention to which we adhere. In reality, however, they are consignors. -3- 1 represent many of the contributor claimants -- and, not 2 incidentally, also two of the three convicted claimants -- sought 3 attorney s fees from the United States. 4 denied their request, and they now appeal from that decision. BACKGROUND 5 6 The district court In September 2002, the convicted claimants -- Ali Sher Khan, 7 Akbar Ali Khan, and Fazan Subhan -- were arrested while on the 8 jetway trying to board a flight from New York to Pakistan 9 carrying $515,583.00 in U.S. currency, concealed, among other 10 places, in soap and toothpaste boxes. 11 were convicted of bulk cash smuggling, see 31 U.S.C. § 5332(a), 12 as well as various offenses relating to their failure to report 13 to government agents the amount of money they were transporting, 14 see 31 U.S.C. § 5316(a)(1)(A), (b). 15 In December 2002, they On or about February 10, 2003, the government filed a civil 16 forfeiture action in rem against the funds seized from the 17 convicted claimants. 18 whether the government was dilatory in eventually returning money 19 to the contributor claimants, we must recite the course of 20 proceedings in some detail. 21 Because this case turns, in part, on On or about March 11, 2003, Ali Sher Khan filed his answer 22 to the complaint in rem as well as responses to the government s 23 interrogatories. 24 for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims) ( Interrogatories may Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. C(6)(b) (Supplemental Rules -4- 1 be served with the complaint in an in rem action without leave of 2 court. 3 answer to the complaint. ) [hereinafter Supplemental Rules]. 4 did not submit a verified claim to the seized funds. 5 papers, Ali Sher Khan mentioned the names of approximately forty- 6 five of the eighty contributor claimants, which corroborated a 7 list the government had seized from his person. 8 sent copies of the verified complaint, as well as the 9 government s interrogatories, to these forty-five putative Answers to the interrogatories must be served with the He In his Customs then 10 claimants. 11 contributor claimants, identified in a letter dated July 9, 2003 12 from Attorney David Udell, who was representing Akbar Ali Khan 13 and Fazal Subhan.2 14 notified nearly all of the contributor claimants that their money 15 had been seized. 16 Customs also sent the same documents to various other Thus, by mid-summer 2003, the government had The contributor claimants, who had violated no law, 17 understandably wanted their money back. 18 Rule C(6)(a)(i)(A), those asserting a right to seized funds must 19 file verified claims promptly. 20 C(6)(a)(iv); see generally United States v. Cambio Exacto, S.A., 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pursuant to Supplemental See also Supplemental Rule 2 While Donohue eventually undertook the representation of Akbar Ali Khan and those who had entrusted him with their funds (the Akbar Ali Khan contributors ), David Udell apparently continues to represent Fazal Subhan and the Fazal Subhan contributors. The rest of their story is irrelevant to this appeal. -5- 1 166 F.3d 522, 529 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. Amiel, 2 995 F.2d 367, 371 (2d Cir. 1993)). 3 not do, in part because some had gone to Pakistan and others did 4 not quickly retain counsel. 5 This, unfortunately, they did The district court, however, has the authority to extend the 6 time period for filing verified claims. See Supplemental Rule 7 C(6)(a)(i)(B). 8 Cheryl L. Pollack proved accommodating. 9 2004, no claimant had filed a verified claim -- neither the And, both Judge Weinstein and Magistrate Judge Still, by January 30, 10 convicted claimants nor a single one of the contributor 11 claimants.3 12 Eventually, the three convicted claimants and those who had 13 contributed money to one of them, Ali Sher Khan, filed verified 14 claims. 15 to forty-one of the forty-five contributors to Ali Sher Khan. 16 However, the aggregate amount claimed by the contributors to Ali 17 Sher Khan exceeded by $28,000 the amount the government had 18 seized from him and his belongings.4 19 contributors whose claims remained in dispute at that point 1 2 4 Three of the four 3 1 2 3 4 5 On August 2, 2004, the government agreed to return money In June 2003, the convicted claimants filed motions seeking leave to file their claims out of time. It appears that Ali Sher Khan was responsible for some of this confusion, as he did not amend his claim downward -- making these four contributors claims more plausible -- until October 19, 2004, on the eve of a hearing before Magistrate Judge Pollack. -6- 1 eventually prevailed after a hearing before Magistrate Judge 2 Pollack, although not until July 1, 2005. 3 With respect to those who had given their money to Akbar Ali 4 Khan (the Akbar Ali Khan contributors ), the process was slower. 5 By August 2, 2004, a number of the Akbar Ali Khan contributors 6 still had failed to respond to the government s interrogatories, 7 and many had not filed verified claims.5 8 Akbar Ali Khan were still filing claims as late as May 2005. 9 Some contributors to As verified claims trickled in, the government pressed for 10 the forfeiture of the full amount owned by the convicted 11 claimants. 12 that amount was unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause 13 of the Eighth Amendment and in light of United States v. 14 Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998). 15 concluding that forfeiture of the entire amount of [convicted] 16 claimants currency would be grossly disproportionate to the 17 gravity of claimants offenses. 18 640. 19 half of the convicted claimants own funds, amounting to $33,500 20 for Ali Sher Khan, $9,650 for Akbar Ali Khan, and $5,000 for 1 2 3 4 5 6 The convicted claimants argued that forfeiture in The district court agreed, $293,316, 349 F. Supp. 2d at The district court ultimately ordered the forfeiture of 5 Some of the Akbar Ali Khan contributors had filed claims on March 9, 2004; these claims, however, were unverified. And, as one of the contributors already had filed a series of false claims for more than $60,000, the government declined to recognize or attempt to settle any of the claims . . . that [were] not notarized or verified. -7- 1 2 Fazal Subhan. Id. at 651. In August 2005, the government began the process of issuing 3 checks to both the contributor claimants and the convicted 4 claimants. 5 and expenses in the amount of $157,884.81, a little under a third 6 of the total amount seized from the convicted claimants on the 7 jetway. 8 although [c]ounsel for all parties . . . acted ethically and 9 properly . . . . [t]he Claimants choice of a surreptitious Thereupon, attorneys Donohue and Smith sought fees The district court denied their application, noting that 10 method for sending their money . . . led to this costly 11 litigation. 12 The district court concluded that attorneys Donohue and 13 Smith could not, pursuant to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform 14 Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-185, 117 Stat. 202 ( CAFRA ), obtain 15 fees for their work on behalf of the contributor claimants 16 because there were competing claims [to the same property] 17 within the meaning of section 2465(b)(2)(C)(ii). 18 § 2465(b)(2). 19 obtain fees for their work on behalf of the convicted claimants 20 because the government had been substantially justified in 21 seeking forfeiture of the convicted claimants money, or, in the 22 alternative, because CAFRA preempted the Equal Access to Justice 23 Act ( EAJA ), see 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412(b), (d)(1)(A), and because 24 CAFRA does not apply if the claimant is convicted of a crime for Cf. 28 U.S.C. The district court also held that they could not -8- 1 which the interest of the claimant in the property was subject to 2 forfeiture under a Federal criminal forfeiture law, 28 U.S.C. § 3 2465(b)(2)(B). This appeal followed. ANALYSIS 4 5 6 I. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act In passing CAFRA, Congress was reacting to public outcry 7 over the government s too-zealous pursuit of civil and criminal 8 forfeiture. 9 the Benefit of Wetterer, 210 F.3d 96, 110 (2d Cir. 2000) ( [W]e Cf. United States v. Funds Held in the Name or for 10 see aggressive but marginal claims asserted on dubious 11 jurisdiction to seize charitable funds raised for the relief of 12 abject orphans in an impoverished country, so that the money can 13 be diverted for expenditure by the Department of Justice. ). 14 part and parcel of this effort to deter government overreaching, 15 Congress provided for the payment of reasonable attorney fees 16 and other litigation costs to claimants who substantially 17 prevail[] in a civil proceeding to forfeit property. 18 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(1)(A). 19 government liability respecting legitimate seizures of property 20 plausibly subject to forfeiture; thus, CAFRA also provides that, 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [i]f there are multiple claims to the same property, the United States shall not be liable for costs and attorneys fees associated with any such claim if the United States-(i) promptly recognizes such claim; (ii) promptly returns the interest of the claimant in the property to the claimant, if the property can be divided without difficulty and there are no As 28 However, Congress had no wish to expand -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(2)(C). 8 exception that the district court invoked to deny Donohue and 9 Smith s request for attorney s fees for their work on behalf of 10 competing claims to that portion of the property; (iii) does not cause the claimant to incur additional, reasonable costs or fees; and (iv) prevails in obtaining forfeiture with respect to one or more of the other claims. It was this multiple claims the contributor claimants.6 11 Appellants argue (1) that the bulk cash seized from the 12 convicted claimants is not the same property within the meaning 13 of the multiple claims exception (because each dollar bill is a 14 discrete parcel of property) and (2) even if it is, the 15 government did not comply with the four predicates to the 16 exception.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 6 1 2 3 4 5 7 We disagree. Addressing Appellants arguments We need not spend much time on Appellants argument that they are entitled, under CAFRA, to fees for their work on behalf of the convicted claimants. CAFRA simply does not apply if the claimant is convicted of a crime for which the interest of the claimant in the property was subject to forfeiture under a Federal criminal forfeiture law. 28 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(2)(B); see United States v. U.S. Currency in the Sum of Six Hundred Sixty Thousand, Two Hundred Dollars, More or Less, 429 F. Supp. 2d 577, 580-81 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). The convicted claimants were, in a word, convicted. The argument that 28 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(2)(B) applies only if the government pursues criminal forfeiture, defies common sense. The plain text of CAFRA bars fee awards if the property was subject to forfeiture under federal law, not just if the property was actually forfeited. Cf. Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 484 (1990). Were we required to reach the question, we would be inclined to agree with the district court that most, if not all, of the contributor claimants could not recover fees as prevailing parties. While we need not firmly decide the question, we think that the Supreme Court s decision in Buckhannon Board & Care -10- 1 seriatim, claims need not be competing, viz. mutually 2 exclusive, as Appellants apparently believe, in order for the 3 claims to relate to the same property. 4 the statute as Appellants do, we would nullify the second clause 5 of § 2465(b)(2)(C), which affords the government leeway to return 6 property more slowly if there are competing claims. 7 Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc., 476 U.S. 498, 510 n.22 8 (1986). 9 Indeed, were we to read Cf. South In addition, under Appellants reading, the multiple claims 10 exception could apply to currency only when the claims exceed the 11 value of the seized money. 12 see situations involving several, mutually exclusive claims to 13 the same currency as just one of the many situations covered by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources should inform our understanding of the term substantially prevails in CAFRA. In Buckhannon, the Court clarified that only enforceable judgments on the merits and court-ordered consent decrees create the material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties necessary to permit an award of attorney s fees. 532 U.S. 598, 604 (2001) (quoting Texas State Teachers Ass n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 792-93 (1989)); see also Sole v. Wyner, 127 S. Ct. 2188, 2195-97 (2007) (holding that a party who obtained a preliminary injunction but subsequently saw her case dismissed on summary judgment did not attain prevailing party status required to obtain fees). Indeed, we are inclined to agree with the Ninth Circuit that the text of CAFRA suggests that Congress meant the fee-shifting provision to apply only in the event a claimant won in court. See Synagogue v. United States, 482 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (interpreting any civil proceeding to forfeit property [to] refer [only] to a proceeding in court ); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(2)(D) (providing for reduction in fees if the court enters judgment in part for the claimant and in part for the Government ) (emphasis added). We read the statute more broadly; we -11- 1 the multiple claims exception. 2 where, as here, the same property is a pool of fungible 3 currency that matches or exceeds the multiple but non-exclusive 4 claims lodged against it. 5 That exception also applies Appellants second argument is that the government has not 6 satisfied the four prerequisites to the multiple claims 7 exception. 8 seriously contest two of the prerequisites. 9 they must, that the government has prevail[ed] in obtaining 10 forfeiture with respect to one or more of the other claims. 11 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(2)(C)(iv). It is also clear on this record -- 12 despite Appellants attack on the government s discovery practice 13 -- that the government did not cause Appellants to incur 14 additional fees. 15 court noted, [t]he government . . . [wa]s doing its job in 16 trying to find out whether these are the people or in fact 17 criminals taking money out illegally . . . and therefore . . . it 18 [wa]s perfectly sound for the government to make inquiries. 19 Appellants principally argue that the government neither promptly 20 recognized their claims nor promptly returned their money. 21 Cf. id. § 2465(b)(2)(C)(i), (ii). 22 It is equally unavailing. Appellants cannot They concede, as Cf. id. § 2465(b)(2)(C)(iii). 28 As the district The Supreme Court has discussed the meaning of 23 prompt[ness] with respect to civil forfeiture. 24 States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($8,850) -12- In United 1 in United States Currency, the Court explained that the 2 Government and the claimant have an interest in a rule that 3 allows the Government some time to investigate the situation in 4 order to determine whether the facts entitle the Government to 5 forfeiture so that, if not, the Government may return the money 6 without formal proceedings. 7 case, the Court considered reasonable for the purposes of due 8 process an eighteen-month delay between the seizure of property 9 and the institution of forfeiture proceedings, in light of the 461 U.S. 555, 565 (1983). In that 10 Government s diligent efforts in processing the petition for 11 mitigation or remission and in pursuing related criminal 12 proceedings. 13 Cafetero Panama, 797 F.2d 1154, 1163 (2d Cir. 1986) (discussing 14 $8,850). 15 of CAFRA, it does inform it. 16 Id. at 569; see also United States v. Banco While this analysis does not control our interpretation The government acted more quickly in this case to recognize 17 claims than it did in $8,850 in deciding whether to pursue 18 forfeiture.8 19 Appellants every opportunity to file verified claims to the 20 seized currency, as they were required to do by the Supplemental 21 Rules. 1 2 3 4 The government, and the district court, gave Appellants did so only belatedly; moreover, since one 8 With respect to the Ali Sher Khan contributors, for instance, verified claims were filed in January 2004 and the government recognized the vast majority of those claims in August 2004, a span of eight months. -13- 1 contributor claimant filed false claims and one convicted 2 claimant modified the amount he claimed downward on the eve of a 3 hearing, the government s careful pace was certainly 4 understandable. 5 Appellants also suggest that the government should have 6 returned the claimed funds earlier; for instance, they argue that 7 the government should have returned money to the forty-one 8 contributor claimants the government recognized on August 4, 9 2004. But Appellants ignore that there were competing claims to 10 that portion of the property that were resolved only a few 11 months before the government had begun issuing checks. 12 § 2465(b)(2)(C)(ii). 13 to those forty-one contributor claimants, it might ultimately 14 have lacked sufficient funds to pay the remaining four 15 contributor claimants. 16 the government was still receiving documents in May 2005, again 17 only a few months before it ultimately distributed the seized 18 funds. 19 reasonable dispatch under these complicated circumstances. 20 we agree with the district court that Appellants are not entitled 21 to attorney s fees for their work on behalf of the contributor 22 claimants. 23 II. The Equal Access to Justice Act 24 28 U.S.C. Indeed, had the government returned money As to the Ali Akbar Khan contributors, All things considered, the government acted with Thus, Attorneys Donohue and Smith also seek fees for their work on -14- 1 behalf of the convicted claimants under the EAJA. 2 provides for the recovery of attorney s fees under either the 3 common law or under the terms of a[] statute which specifically 4 provides for such an award provided that no other statute bars 5 the fee award. 6 (permitting fees [e]xcept as otherwise specifically provided by 7 statute ). 8 9 The EAJA 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b); see also id. § 2412(d)(1)(A) Courts have taken two basic approaches to the construction of § 2412. Some circuits view that provision as a supplement to 10 existing fee-shifting provisions. 11 Mgmt., 808 F.2d 1456, 1463-65 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (en banc); United 12 States v. 329.73 Acres of Land, 704 F.2d 800, 803-10 (5th Cir. 13 1983) (en banc); United States v. 101.80 Acres of Land, 716 F.2d 14 714, 724 n.16, 726-27 (9th Cir. 1983). 15 is only preempted when it is in irreconcilable tension with 16 another fee-shifting statute. 17 construed the EAJA to apply only in the absence of any other fee- 18 shifting mechanisms. See E.E.O.C. v. O & G Spring & Wire Forms 19 Speciality Co., 38 F.3d 872, 882 (7th Cir. 1994); Natural Res. 20 Def. Council, Inc. v. United States E.P.A., 703 F.2d 700, 704-06 21 (3d Cir. 1983); Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. E.P.A., 716 F.2d 915, 22 919 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (per curiam). 23 See Gavette v. Office of Pers. Under this view, the EAJA Other circuits, by contrast, have We need not decide the question here, for the EAJA and CAFRA -15- 1 are irreconcilably at odds.9 2 unequivocally provides that [t]he United States shall not be 3 required to . . . make any other payments to the claimant not 4 specifically authorized by this subsection. 5 Thus, CAFRA is exclusive of all other remedies. 6 Appellants are not entitled to fees under CAFRA for their work on 7 behalf of the convicted claimants, see supra Part I, they cannot 8 obtain through the backdoor of the EAJA what Congress has 9 forbidden them to obtain through the front door of CAFRA. 10 Section 2465(b)(2)(A) expressly and (emphasis added). And, since We thus agree with the district court that Appellants are 11 not entitled to attorney s fees for their work on behalf of the 12 convicted claimants. 13 * 14 * * * * Whether or not each dollar carried by the convicted 15 claimants could be traced to a different contributor claimant, we 16 will not require the district court to engage in such 17 metaphysical slicing-and-dicing. 18 731, 740 (1969). 19 attend transactions involving scores of persons, across many 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cf. Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. Rather, we recognize that complications often 9 We note, however, that the latter view better accords with the text of the EAJA and with its legislative history. See H.R. Rep. No. 96-1418, at 18 (1980), as reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4984, 4997 (explaining that this section is not intended to replace or supercede any existing fee-shifting statutes . . . or to alter the standards or the case law governing those Acts. It is intended to apply only to cases (other than tort cases) where fee awards against the government are not already authorized ). -16- 1 miles, and involving several hundreds of thousands of dollars. 2 Untangling the skein of ownership in cases like this one is a 3 difficult and complicated task. 4 mean that attorney s fees are properly withheld, even from 5 innocent contributors. 6 couriers to deliver money to friends and relatives because the 7 couriers speak their language, charge no fees, and serve areas 8 remote from the nearest Western Union branch, and while we are 9 equally mindful that Donohue and Smith invested considerable time Those complications will often While we understand that many aliens use 10 in helping the contributor claimants recover their money, under 11 CAFRA those facts cannot justify the imposition of another burden 12 on the public fisc. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the 15 district court. 16 -17-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.