U.S. v. One 1951 Douglas DC-6 Aircraft
| Decision Date | 29 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | DC-6,No. 80-1194,80-1194 |
| Citation | 667 F.2d 502 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ONE 1951 DOUGLASAIRCRAFT, et al., Defendants, Ernesto Zaragoza Y., Claimant-Appellant. ERNESTO ZARAGOZA Y., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; John Doe Wray, U. S. Customs Service Regional Supervisor; Adele Corp, heir of estate of Bryan Corp; Cryderman Air Service, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Michael J. Meehan, Molloy, Jones, Donahue, Trachta, Childers & Mallamo, Tucson, Ariz., for claimant-appellant.
W. J. Michael Cody, U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., Allan Neef, Darden, Neef & Heitsch, Birmingham, Mich., Richard D. Burris (Corp.), Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, and ENGEL and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
Ernesto Zaragoza Y. appeals from the judgment of the district court, Judge Harry W. Wellford, authorizing and approving the forfeiture of an airplane in which he claims a security interest. United States Customs agents seized the plane at Memphis International Airport on April 26, 1977. It is undisputed that the plane contained 5,420 pounds of marijuana when seized, and that the plane would be subject to forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(a) but for Zaragoza's security interest. Zaragoza appeals on three grounds. First, he claims that venue was not proper in the Western District of Tennessee under 28 U.S.C. § 1395(b) because the plane had been transferred by the government for storage to Tucson, Arizona before the forfeiture action was commenced. The court is of the opinion that 19 U.S.C. § 1605, which authorizes the kind of storage transfer made in this case, permits forfeiture actions to be brought in the district where the property was seized regardless of where the customs officer chooses to store the property after seizure.
Zaragoza's second claim is that the fifteen months which elapsed between the seizure of the airplane and the initiation of the forfeiture action constituted unreasonable delay violative of Zaragoza's procedural due process rights and 19 U.S.C. § 1604. The court holds that the delay in this case was not unreasonable under the circumstances, for the reasons set forth in Judge Wellford's order of August 31, 1979 denying Zaragoza's motion for summary judgment. 475 F.Supp. 1056.
Finally, Zaragoza argues that forfeiture of the airplane would deprive him of his security interest in the plane and thereby abridge his substantive due process rights. He relies entirely upon ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Campos
...the illegal use of the forfeited aircraft. United States v. One 1951 Douglas DC-6 Aircraft, 525 F.Supp. 13 (W.D.Tenn.1979), aff'd, 667 F.2d 502 (6th Cir.1981), cert. denied sub nom. Ernesto Zaragoza Y. v. United States, 462 U.S. 1105, 103 S.Ct. 2451, 77 L.Ed.2d 1332 We conclude, therefore, ......
-
State v. One 1979 Pontiac Sunbird
...Benz, 708 F.2d 444 (9 Cir.1983); United States v. One Tintoretto Painting, Etc., 691 F.2d 603 (2 Cir.1982); United States v. One 1951 Douglas DC-6 Aircraft, 667 F.2d 502 (6 Cir.1981), cert. den. ---U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2451, 77 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1983); United States v. One 1957 Rockwell Aero Co......
-
State v. One 1981 BMW Auto., 5566
...right to due process. See United States v. Kemp, 690 F.2d 397, 401-402 n. 5 (4th Cir.1982); but see United States v. One 1951 Douglas DC-6 Aircraft, 667 F.2d 502 (6th Cir.1981).9 This holding applies only to those factual circumstances wherein the state alleges that property "has been used"......
-
Martin v. City of Glasgow
...violate procedural due process); Carter, 767 F.2d at 273 (several week delay constitutional); see also United States v. One 1951 Douglas DC–6 Aircraft, 667 F.2d 502, 503 (6th Cir.1981) (fifteen-month delay between seizure of aircraft and forfeiture action did not implicate procedural due pr......