Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. HEAVY MACHINERY PERFORMA AKIRA SEIKI DATE 2000, 2:14-mc-00089-MCE-EFB. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20151008839 Visitors: 24
Filed: Oct. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 07, 2015
Summary: CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , Chief District Judge . Pursuant to the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, the Court finds: 1. On or about October 9, 2013, agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") seized the Heavy Machinery listed above (hereafter "defendant properties") pursuant to the execution of a search warrant at D. Wilson Machine, Inc. at 950 Riverside Parkway, Suite 70, West Sacramento, California. 2. The AT
More

CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE

Pursuant to the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, the Court finds:

1. On or about October 9, 2013, agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") seized the Heavy Machinery listed above (hereafter "defendant properties") pursuant to the execution of a search warrant at D. Wilson Machine, Inc. at 950 Riverside Parkway, Suite 70, West Sacramento, California.

2. The ATF commenced administrative forfeiture proceedings, sending direct notice to all known potential claimants and publishing notice to all others. On or about March 25, 2014, the ATF received a claim from Dean Wilson and Lisa Wilson ("claimants") asserting an ownership interest in the defendant properties.

3. The United States represents that it could show at a forfeiture trial that Dean Wilson was the owner of D. Wilson Machine, Inc. ("DW Machine"), a machine and metal shop in West Sacramento, California. On May 4, 2013, an undercover law enforcement agent from the ATF went to DW Machine and observed that the above-captioned machines were being used to manufacture firearms by converting unfinished lower receiver blanks into finished AR-15-style lower receivers. While at DW Machine, the ATF undercover agent spoke to Dean Wilson. Wilson stated that he and his business partner Stephen Philip were converting five-to-ten blanks into lower receivers every Saturday and that they may increase the number because, "it's a good money maker." During this visit to DW Machine, the ATF undercover agent paid Philip $160 to convert two unfinished blanks into two AR-15-style lower receivers.

4. The United States represents that it could also show at a forfeiture trial that between May 31, 2013, and July 2, 2013, ATF undercover agents purchased twenty AR-15 rifles from Ronald Quilacio. Fifteen of these firearms were short-barrel rifles with barrel lengths ranging between eight and ten inches long. None of these firearms were registered or contained a serial number. And no ATF paperwork or background checks were completed. Quilacio manufactured all twenty of these firearms with the assistance of Stephen Philip and Dean Wilson at DW Machine.

5. The United States could further show at a forfeiture trial that the defendant properties are forfeitable to the United States pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 5872.

6. Without admitting the truth of the factual assertions contained above, claimants specifically denying the same, and for the purpose of reaching an amicable resolution and compromise of this matter, claimants agree that an adequate factual basis exists to support forfeiture of the defendant properties. Claimants acknowledge that they are the sole owners of the defendant properties, and that no other person or entity has any legitimate claim of interest therein. Should any person or entity institute any kind of claim or action against the government with regard to its forfeiture of the defendant properties, claimants shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States, as set forth below.

7. This Court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1355, as this is the judicial district in which acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred.

8. This Court has venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1395, as this is the judicial district in which the defendant properties were seized.

9. The parties herein desire to settle this matter pursuant to the terms of a duly executed Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture.

Based upon the above findings, and the files and records of the Court, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

10. The Court adopts the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture entered into by and between the parties.

11. Upon entry of this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, the following defendant properties shall be forfeited to the United States pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 5872, to be disposed of according to law:

a. Heavy Machinery Performa Akira Seiki Date 2000, Model V-4A Serial Number: 00VGN305-389, b. Heavy Machinery Performa Akira Seiki Date 1999, Model V3 Serial Number: 99VDN180-175, and c. Heavy Machinery Performa Akira Seiki Date 1998, Model V2, Serial Number: 98N165-065.

12. Upon entry of this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, but no later than 60 days thereafter, the United States shall return the $4,400.00 Claim Bond that was submitted to ATF with their claim to Dean Wilson and Lisa Wilson through their attorney Mark Reichel.

13. The United States of America and its servants, agents, and employees and all other public entities, their servants, agents and employees, are released from any and all liability arising out of or in any way connected with the seizure or forfeiture of the defendant properties. This is a full and final release applying to all unknown and unanticipated injuries, and/or damages arising out of said seizure or forfeiture, as well as to those now known or disclosed. Claimants waived the provisions of California Civil Code § 1542.

14. No portion of the stipulated settlement, including statements or admissions made therein, shall be admissible in any criminal action pursuant to Rules 408 and 410(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

15. All parties will bear their own costs and attorney's fees.

16. Pursuant to the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture filed herein, the Court enters this Certificate of Reasonable Cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465, that there was reasonable cause for the seizure of the above-described defendant properties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer