Appellate Law

CA1: unpublished opinion pretending to discuss Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) statute of limitations

By S. COTUS

Santiago-Lugo v. US, No. 08-1462 (unpublished) summarily affirms a District Court?s ?dismissal of his claim pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) for the return of [seized, but not forfeited] property as barred by the statute of limitations.?  Now, despite the fact that the First admits that this is an issue of First Impression, it is unpublished.

This case is an embarrassment to the court.  Not so much for the result that they reach, but for the fact that their entitle analysis seems to be that ?other circuits do it this way? and it is unpublished.

The First says that the six-year statute of limitations in  28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) applies, and it begins to run not on the date that the ?the district court granted the government's Rule 36 motion to amend the judgment to include the forfeiture order.?  But rather on some earlier date, like when an underlying appeal is resolved. 

The First concludes that the defendant should have known that the omission of the forfeiture final order was inadvertent, and therefore he should have asserted his right to the goods then. 

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on August 14, 2008 (boomark / email).