United States of America v. Ian Judd

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IAN JUDD,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30329
D.C. No. 3:05-cr-00068-RRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ian Judd appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion
requesting the return of property seized by the United States government. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Judd contends that he is entitled to the return of $11,030 that was forfeited as
FILED
AUG 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30329 2
part of an administrative forfeiture in July 2005. We review de novo the district
court’s interpretation of federal forfeiture law and its findings of fact for clear
error. See United States v. Alcaraz-Garcia, 79 F.3d 769, 772 (9th Cir. 1996). The
district court properly determined that Judd’s motion for the return of property
seized for forfeiture was barred by the statute of limitations because he did not file
the motion within five years of the date of final publication of notice of seizure.
See 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1), (3) (providing that “[a]ny person entitled to written
notice in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute
who does not receive such notice may file a motion to set aside a declaration of
forfeiture,” but “not later than 5 years after the date of final publication of notice of
seizure of the property”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --