889 F.2d 1097 (9th Cir. 1989), 88-6405, U.S. v. One Residential Property Located At 450 Ocean Drive, PH-3, Juno Beach, Fla.
|Citation:||889 F.2d 1097|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ONE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 450 OCEAN DRIVE, PH-3, JUNO BEACH, FLORIDA, and Appurtenances Thereto, Defendant, v. Roger HEASLIP, Claimant-Appellant.|
|Case Date:||October 26, 1989|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Decided Nov. 16, 1989.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; J. Lawrence Irving, District Judge, Presiding.
Before ALARCON, O'SCANNLAIN and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Heaslip appeals the district court's order denying him additional time to file a claim to the subject property. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Heaslip is a defendant in a criminal proceeding which is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. He was indicted along with seven co-conspirators for conspiracy to import marijuana with intent to distribute. Heaslip was arrested in Canada and proceedings to extradite him to the United States are currently pending in Canada. Heaslip also faces charges under Canadian law.
On October 1, 1987, the United States filed a complaint for forfeiture of a Florida condominium under 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6), alleging that it was purchased with money derived form the sale of controlled substances. Prior to Heaslip's release on bond on December 24, 1987, Heaslip was served personally with a notice of forfeiture on November 24, 1987 by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Heaslip did not file a claim and answer in response to the notice of forfeiture, and on March 22, 1988, default judgment was entered by the district court. Heaslip requested the court to grant him an extension of time to file a claim under Admiralty Rule C(6). The district court denied his request, and Heaslip timely appeals.
The district court found that Heaslip was a fugitive, thus barred from asserting any claim to the property which is subject to the forfeiture action. The court reached this decision after reviewing affidavits from the Assistant United States Attorney and the counsel for criminal prosecution...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP