US v. Edwards, No. 05-7586 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 11, 2006.
Download PDF
ON REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7586 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICK EDWARDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-00-136) Submitted: March 22, 2006 Decided: June 7, 2006 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, William Edward Fitzpatrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Patrick denying his property. Edwards motion for appeals return the of district court s administratively order forfeited The district court determined that the notice provided by the Government was constitutionally adequate. We disagree. No attempt was apparently made to serve Edwards with notice of the forfeiture proceeding either in person or at the location at which he was then-incarcerated by federal authorities, despite the facts that (1) he made an initial court appearance in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia, the district and division in which the forfeiture proceeding was initiated, on the very day notice of the forfeiture proceeding was sent to the Wayne County Jail in Detroit, an attorney s address in Detroit, and a residential address in Chicago; (2) he made a second court appearance in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia the very day notice of the forfeiture proceeding was published in The Wall Street Journal; and (3) he remained in federal custody during the entire period in administrative forfeiture action remained pending. circumstances, we conclude that notice was not which the Under these reasonably calculated to apprise Edwards of the pendency of the action of forfeiture. 2000). See United States v. Minor, 228 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument - 2 - because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED - 3 -
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.
