United States v. Morales
| Decision Date | 16 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 6:12–cr–121–Orl–37KRS. |
| Citation | 36 F.Supp.3d 1276 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Luis E. MORALES, In re: Petition of Linda M. Morales. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
I. Randall Gold, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, Karen L. Gable, Nicole M. Andrejko, U.S. Attorney's Office, Orlando, FL, for United States of America.
Luis E. Morales, Orlando, FL, pro se.
This cause is before the Court on the following:
This matter is before the Court concerning the Petitioner Linda Morales' claim to the one-half interest in real property located at 8 Crossings Trail, Ormond Beach, Florida 32174 (the “Property”), which this Court ordered preliminarily forfeited to the Government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2428 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(e)(1)(B). (Docs. 124, 131.) On December 7, 2012, Petitioner filed her claim pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6), contending that she has “a vested and legal and equitable right, title and/or interest in the [P]roperty which is now and was at the time of the commission of the acts giving rise to the forfeiture of the [P]roperty ... superior to any right, title, or interest of [her spouse] Defendant Luis Morales.” (Doc. 131, p. 5.)
After Petitioner and the Government engaged in discovery (Docs. 138, 143–44), the Government filed a motion for summary judgment on Petitioner's claim (Doc. 209), and Petitioner responded in opposition to the motion (Docs. 213, 214). The motion was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding for a report and recommendation. On April 30, 2014 Magistrate Judge Spaulding issued a report and recommendation that Petitioner “cannot prevail on her claim that she held an interest in the Property that was superior to that of Luis Morales at the time of the commission of the crimes giving rise to the forfeiture of Luis Morales' interest in the Property.” (Doc. 221, p. 1281.) Magistrate Judge Spaulding further recommended that the Court grant the Government's motion, “approve the settlement of the County of Volusia's ancillary petition and enter a final order and judgment of forfeiture.” (Id. at 1294.) Petitioner and the Government filed objections (Docs. 222, 223),1 and the Government filed a response to Petitioner's objections (Doc. 224.) The matter is now ripe for the Court's adjudication.
When a party objects to a magistrate judge's findings in a report and recommendation, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ; Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2) ; Local Rule 6.02. The district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court must consider the record and factual issues based on the record independent of the magistrate judge's report. Ernest S. ex rel. Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir.1990).
Upon de novo review of the record as a whole and the parties' objections, the Court agrees entirely with Magistrate Judge Spaulding's comprehensive and well-reasoned report and recommendation. Petitioner's objections simply reiterate her prior arguments, which were thoroughly addressed and properly rejected in the report and recommendation. The Court finds no error after an independent review. See Ernest S., 896 F.2d at 513. Thus, the report and recommendation is due to be adopted.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
On November 5, 2012, a jury convicted Luis E. Morales (“Luis Morales”) of one count of child sex trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a), and five counts of transporting minors in interstate commerce with the intent that they engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Doc. No. 116. These crimes occurred between November 2009 and January 2011. See Doc. No. 57; Doc. No. 116; Doc. No. 213 at 5.
The Court then conducted the forfeiture phase of the trial, with the jury finding that 8 Crossings Trail, Ormond Beach, Florida (“the Property”) was used or intended to be used to commit or facilitate the commission of each of the offenses of conviction. See Doc. No. 120; Doc. No. 184 at 135–46. Based on the jury verdict, the Court entered a preliminary order finding that Luis Morales forfeited his interest in the Property. Doc. No. 124. In the Judgment, the Court ordered that Luis Morales “shall forfeit [his] interest in the following property to the United States: those items previously identified in the Indictment that are subject to forfeiture.”1 Doc. No. 150 at 6. On January 7, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Luis Morales's convictions. Doc. No. 215.
On December 7, 2012, Linda M. Morales (“Linda Morales”) petitioned the Court for an ancillary proceeding to adjudicate the validity of her interest in the Property, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2. Doc. No. 131. In her petition, Linda Morales asserts that she holds complete legal and equitable title to the Property in fee simple and has held such title at all material times. Id. at 1–2. On referral, I granted in part Linda Morales's petition for an ancillary proceeding and deferred ruling on the merits of her assertions pending discovery and further briefing.2 Doc. No. 139.
After completion of discovery, the United States filed the above-referenced motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 209. The United States asserts that the undisputed facts establish that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Linda Morales did not have a vested right, title, or interest in the Property superior to Luis Morales's interest in the Property at the time of the commission of the crimes giving rise to the forfeiture. The United States also argues that the forfeiture of Luis Morales's interest in the Property does not violate Linda Morales's rights under the United States Constitution.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, the United States submits the following:
Linda Morales responded in opposition to the United States' motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 213.4 In support of her response, she submits the following:
The United States' motion for summary judgment was referred to me for issuance of a Report and Recommendation. This motion is ripe for review.
On June 27, 1988, Linda Morales purchased the Property as a joint owner with John Palfrey (“Palfrey”), her then husband. Doc. No. 209–1; Morales Dec. ¶ 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Petition Morales
...36 F.Supp.3d 1276UNITED STATES of America,v.Luis E. MORALES,In re: Petition of Linda M. Morales.Case No. 6:12–cr–121–Orl–37KRS.United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division.Signed July 16, Motion granted. [36 F.Supp.3d 1278] I. Randall Gold, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL,......