United States of America v. $32,950.00 United States Currency

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LAREDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
$32,950.00 UNITED STATES
CURRENCY
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Case No. 5:25-CV-00091
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Government’s Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Final Order of Forfeiture,
Dkt. No. 11, was referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Dkt. No. 12. For the following reasons, the undersigned respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the Government’s Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Final Order
of Forfeiture, Dkt. No. 11, be GRANTED.
Background
Defendant Currency was seized from Felecia Elaine Martinez when she was attempting to
travel from the United States into Mexico via the Juarez-Lincoln International Bridge in Laredo,
Texas. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 6. Her silver 2015 Jeep Cherokee was selected for outbound inspection by
Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Id. When asked for her driver’s license, she “provided a
fictitious Mexican driver’s license from Cocula, Guerrero, Mexico which displayed her photo, the
name of Arely Ochoa Arroyo, and a date of birth. Id. at ¶ 7. Ms. Martinez was then referred for
secondary inspection, during which she gave a negative declaration for currency over $10,000.00.
Id. at ¶ 8. Instead, she stated that she had $4,000.00 in cash inside a fanny pack. Id. After a trained
currency and firearms detection canine alerted to a backpack in the vehicle, CBP officers
discovered undisclosed currency purportedly bundled in $1,000.00 and $2,000.00 amounts. Id. at
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 08, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 5:25-cv-00091 Document 13 Filed 07/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 10

2
¶¶ 8–9. The total amount of currency seized from Ms. Martinez at the border was $32,950.00. Id.
at ¶ 13.
CBP officers detained and interviewed Ms. Martinez, at which point she was fingerprinted.
Id. at ¶ 10. Her fingerprints revealed that her true and correct name is Felecia Elaine Martinez,
that she is a United States citizen, and that she had a criminal history that included pending federal
drug trafficking charges.1 Id. at ¶ 10. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Special Agents
arrested Ms. Martinez for bulk cash smuggling. Id. at ¶ 11. In a Mirandized interview, Ms.
Martinez informed HSI agents that the undeclared currency came from a retirement account from
previous employment, and that she had “cashed out” the account in preparation for her trip to
Mexico. Id. at ¶¶ 11–12. Ms. Martinez further stated that she was traveling to Mexico to avoid
the federal drug trafficking charges pending against her in Oklahoma, that she acquired the false
Mexican ID in preparation for her trip, and that she had intended to stay with her husband’s family
in Mexico. Id. at 12. She also “traveled into Mexico yearly and was familiar with the reporting
requirement for transporting currency into Mexico,” and “[s]he admitted that she knew she had
more than $10,000 in her backpack and did not declare it when she was asked by CBP officers.”
Id.
The Government filed a Complaint for Forfeiture against Defendant Currency on June 11,
2025. Dkt. No. 1. A warrant for arrest in rem was issued for Defendant Currency on July 8, 2025,
and it was executed on July 15, 2025. Dkt. Nos. 4–6. On August 18, 2025, the Government posted
proof that notice of the forfeiture proceedings against Defendant Currency had been posted on the
www.forfeiture.gov website for thirty consecutive days from June 14, 2025, through July 13, 2025.
1 See United States v. Martinez, Case Nos. 4:25-CR-00234-SEH-1 and 4:24-CR-0078-SEH-6, Dkt. No. 480 (N.D.
Okla. Nov. 24, 2025) (finding Ms. Martinez guilty of drug conspiracy, possession of methamphetamine with intent to
distribute, maintaining a drug-involved premises, and attempted bulk cash smuggling pursuant to a plea agreement).
Case 5:25-cv-00091 Document 13 Filed 07/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 10

3
Dkt. No. 7. Additionally, on September 18, 2025, the Government filed proof of service of the
Complaint on Ms. Martinez through her legal counsel, Cheryl Thigpen, by electronic mail. Dkt.
No. 8. The filing indicated that Ms. Martinez’s attorney read the message on June 23, 2025. Id.
at 4. The Government requested Entry of Default on September 18, 2025, Dkt. No. 9, and the
Clerk of Court entered default against potential claimants of Defendant Currency on December
15, 2025. Dkt. No. 10. Subsequently, the Government filed the instant Motion for Default
Judgment and Entry of Final Order of Forfeiture on January 27, 2026. Dkt. No. 11.
Legal Standards
The Government must comply with all relevant procedural requirements in seeking default
judgment in an asset forfeiture. United States v. $11,409.02, No. 4:21-CV-01349, 2021 WL
5177065 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2021). The procedural requirements are found in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 55 and Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset
Forfeiture Actions (“Rule G”). In addition to procedural compliance, the Government’s Complaint
must establish a valid cause of action. United States v. $19,840.00, 552 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D.
Tex. 2008). Default judgment must be appropriate under the Lindsey factors. United States v.
$11,409.02, 2021 WL 5177065, at *2–3 (citing Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 161 F.3d 886, 893 (5th Cir.
1998)). And, if default judgment is appropriate, the Court must determine “what form of relief, if
any, the Government should receive,” United States v. $19,840, 552 F. Supp. 2d at 635 (citing
Nishimatsu Const. Co. v. Houston Nat. Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)), and confirm
that the default judgment does not exceed nor differ from what is demanded in the complaint. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(c).
Case 5:25-cv-00091 Document 13 Filed 07/08/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 10

4
A. Procedural Requirements
The Government has complied with the relevant procedural requirements found in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 55 and Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime
Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (“Rule G”). Rule 55 contains three steps for default
judgments. When a defendant, or “claimant” in a forfeiture posture, fails to respond or otherwise
defend against a lawsuit, they “default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Once the plaintiff proves that failure
through an affidavit or otherwise, the clerk of court enters the claimant’s default, called “entry of
default.” Id. After default is entered, the plaintiff may move for default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(b)(2).
In asset forfeiture cases, the Government must comply with the pleading and notice
requirements of Rule G. United States v. $62,200.00 in U.S. Currency, Civ. No. H-21-3971, 2023
WL 2386884, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2023) (citing In re Ramu Corp., 903 F.2d 312, 317 n.7 (5th
Cir. 1990)). For pleadings, the Government’s complaint must:
(a) be verified;
(b) state the grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the
defendant property, and venue;
(c) describe the property with reasonable particularity;
(d) if the property is tangible, state its location when any seizure occurred and—if
different—its location when the action is filed;
(e) identify the statute under which the forfeiture action is brought; and
(f) state sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government
will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.
Fed. R. Civ. P. G(2).
Here, the factual basis of the Government’s Complaint was verified by HSI Special Agent
René Montiel, who affirmed that the facts in the complaint “are based upon [his] personal
knowledge, upon information obtained from other law enforcement personnel, or upon information
[he] obtained in the course of [the] investigation, and they are true and correct to the best of [his]
Case 5:25-cv-00091 Document 13 Filed 07/08/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 10

5
knowledge and belief.” Dkt. No. 1 at 6. This verification satisfies Rule G(2)(a). The Government
stated the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1335,
proper venue due to the seizure at the Juarez-Lincoln International Bridge in Laredo, Texas, and
in rem jurisdiction over Defendant Currency as it remains in the control of the Department of
Homeland Security United States CBP Office of Fines, Penalties, and Forfeiture in the Southern
District of Texas. Id. at ¶¶ 3–5. These statements satisfy Rule G(2)(b). The Complaint describes
the property with particularity and states the location where the seizure occurred—namely, it
specifies that Defendant Currency, in the amount of $32,950.00, was seized from Ms. Martinez at
the Juarez-Lincoln International Bridge in Laredo, Texas. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 13. This information satisfies
Rule G(2)(c)–(d). The Government further alleges that Defendant Currency is subject to forfeiture
under 31 U.S.C. § 5332(c), satisfying Rule G(2)(e).
Finally, under Rule G(2)(f), the Government must state sufficiently detailed facts to support
a reasonable belief that it would meet its burden at trial. The Government has met this burden
here. Under 31 U.S.C. § 5316, the Government would have the burden to prove that Ms. Martinez
knowingly transported or was about to transport monetary instruments of more than $10,000.00 at
one time from a place in the United States to a place outside the United States. 31 U.S.C.
§ 5316(a)(1). “Monetary instruments” include United States currency. 31 U.S.C. § 5312(a)(3).
The facts in the Complaint establish that Ms. Martinez was traveling from the United States into
Mexico, that she was transporting United States currency in excess of $10,000.00, and that she
“admitted that she knew she had more than $10,000 in her backpack and did not declare it when
she was asked by CBP officers.” Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 12. Accordingly, the Government has stated
sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that it would meet its burden at trial.
Case 5:25-cv-00091 Document 13 Filed 07/08/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 10

6
Rule G also requires the Government to provide notice to potential claimants of seized
currency of the forfeiture action in several ways. Within a reasonable time, the Government must
publish notice of the forfeiture on the Government’s forfeiture website, and the notice must appear
for at least thirty consecutive days. Rule G(4)(a)(iii)(A), (4)(a)(iv)(C). The Government must also
directly notify “any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant[.]” Rule G(4)(b)(i).
Directly notified potential claimants must file a claim within thirty-five days of receiving notice.
Rule G(4)(b)(ii). Other potential claimants must file their claims within sixty days of the first day
the Government published notice on its website. Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B).
In this case, the Government published notice of the forfeiture on www.forfeiture.gov for
thirty consecutive days from June 14, 2025, through July 13, 2025, in compliance with Rule
G(4)(a). Dkt. No. 7. Additionally, the Government notified the only known potential claimant,
Ms. Martinez, by sending the Complaint to her attorney by electronic mail. Dkt. No. 8. The read
receipt on the email indicates that the email was read on June 23, 2025, approximately six minutes
after it was sent. Id. at 4. The undersigned finds that this discharged the Government’s obligation
to notify Ms. Martinez of the forfeiture proceedings because Rule G specifies that “[n]otice may
be sent to the potential claimant or to the attorney representing the potential claimant with respect
to the seizure of the property or in a related investigation, administrative forfeiture proceeding, or
criminal case.”2 Rule G(4)(b)(iii)(B). See also United States v. $11,409.02 Seized from a Comerica
Bank Account Ending in 2113, Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-01349, 2021 WL 5177065, at *2 (S.D.
Tex. Nov. 8, 2021) (finding that the Government had complied with the notice requirement under
2 Here, the Government sent electronic notice to Cheryl Thigpen, who is Ms. Martinez’s attorney of record in her
corresponding criminal case. Dkt. No. 8; see Martinez, Case Nos. 4:24-CR-78-SEH-6, 4:25-CR-234-SEH, Dkt. No.
437 at 21 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 25, 2025).
Case 5:25-cv-00091 Document 13 Filed 07/08/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 10

7
Rule G(4)(b)(iii) where it sent notice of the complaint via email to a known potential claimant’s
counsel).
To respond or defend in a forfeiture action, a potential claimant must (1) file a claim for
the property and (2) answer or file a Rule 12 motion. Rule G(5)(a)(i), G(5)(b). Despite adequate
notice from the Government, see Dkt. Nos. 7–8, no claimant has completed either task to date.3
The Government obtained entry of default on December 15, 2025. Dkt. Nos. 9–10. The
Government has now properly moved for default judgment and entry of final order of forfeiture.
Dkt. No. 11.
B. Valid Cause of Action
Beyond procedure, the Government must establish a valid cause of action, here a valid
forfeiture. United States v. $19,840, 552 F. Supp. 2d at 635. The Government’s bases for forfeiture
are 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(2) and 31 U.S.C. § 5332(c), providing for the forfeiture of currency
greater than $10,000.00 concealed with the intent to transport it across the United States border
and evade the reporting requirement, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5316. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 1–2. Since
the Government is claiming the property was used in a criminal offense or was involved in the
commission of one, it must prove there was a substantial connection between Defendant Currency
and the alleged offense. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(3). The Government’s burden of proof is a
preponderance of the evidence. § 983(c)(1). Additionally, when a claimant fails to respond, the
Government’s allegations are assumed to be true. See Nishimatsu, 515 F.2d at 1206.
Here, the connection between Defendant Currency and the alleged criminal violation is
abundantly clear. Defendant Currency itself was the contraband in this case. When she was
3 In fact, Ms. Martinez has waived her interest in Defendant Currency by accepting the forfeiture of Defendant
Currency as part of her plea agreement in the corresponding criminal case. Martinez, Case Nos. 4:24-CR-78-SEH-6,
4:25-CR-234-SEH, Dkt. No. 437 at 7 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 25, 2025).
Case 5:25-cv-00091 Document 13 Filed 07/08/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 10

8
stopped for inspection traveling from the United States to Mexico, Ms. Martinez “gave a negative
declaration to CBP Officer Gonzalez for the outbound transportation of weapons, ammunition, and
currency over $10,000.00,” stating only that she possessed $4,000.00 in a fanny pack. Dkt. No. 1
at ¶ 8. Ms. Martinez was referred for further inspection, and a currency and firearms detection
canine alerted to a backpack in her vehicle. Id. In the backpack, CBP officers discovered bundles
of cash labeled in $1,000.00 and $2,000.00 amounts. Id. at ¶ 9. CBP officers and HSI agents
ultimately seized a total of $32,950.00 from Ms. Martinez during this encounter, an amount well
in excess of the $10,000.00 threshold to trigger the reporting requirement. Id. at ¶ 13. Accordingly,
the Government has established a valid cause of action in this case.
C. The Lindsey Factors
In addition to being procedurally proper and there being a valid cause of action, default
judgment must be proper considering the Lindsey factors. United States v. $11,409.02, 2021 WL
5177065, at *2–3 (citing Lindsey, 161 F.3d at 893). The factors are:
(1) whether material issues of fact are in dispute; (2) whether there has been
substantial prejudice to the plaintiff; (3) whether the grounds for default are clearly
established; (4) whether the default was caused by a good-faith mistake or
excusable neglect on the defendant’s part; (5) whether default judgment is
inappropriately harsh under the circumstances; and (6) whether the court would
think itself obliged to set aside the default upon motion by the defendant.
Id. (cleaned up). None of the factors favor denying default judgment. Thus, default judgment is
proper.
D. Form of Relief
Finally, the Government requests appropriate relief. See United States v. $19,840, 552 F.
Supp. 2d at 635 (citing Nishimatsu, 515 F.2d at 1206). Given the facts alleged by the Government
and the relevant law, forfeiture of Defendant Currency is appropriate. Additionally, the request to
Case 5:25-cv-00091 Document 13 Filed 07/08/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 10

9
forfeit $32,950.00 is the same relief as requested from the Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, satisfying Rule
54(c). Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the
Government’s Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Final Order of Forfeiture, Dkt. No. 11,
be GRANTED.
Signed this July 8, 2026, in Laredo, Texas.
______________________________
Diana Song Quiroga
United States Magistrate Judge
Warnings
The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation, unless they waive the
right to do so. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or
recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider
frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th
Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc)).
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations
contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Report—
or the party’s waiver of the right to do so—shall bar that party from de novo review by the District
Court of the proposed findings and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, shall
bar the party from appellate review of proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by
the District Court to which no objections were filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn,
Case 5:25-cv-00091 Document 13 Filed 07/08/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 10

10
474 U.S. 140, 150–53 (1985); Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29
(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Case 5:25-cv-00091 Document 13 Filed 07/08/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 10