Rodney Sanders v. United States, No. 18-1286 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Shepherd, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Forfeiture. The government took reasonable steps to inform plaintiff of the forfeiture proceeding, even if the notice did not reach him, and the district court did not err in denying his 18 U.S.C. Sec. 983(e) motion to set aside the forfeiture.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1286 ___________________________ Rodney Lamont Sanders lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: December 26, 2018 Filed: January 8, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Rodney Sanders appeals the district court’s1 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 1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 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 (2002) (describing the dueprocess 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. ______________________________ -2-
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.
