Filed: Apr. 25, 1997
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 1997 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 96-5204 v. (N. Dist. of Oklahoma) (D.C. No. 91-CR-92E) KENNETH N. POWELL, Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist t
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 1997 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 96-5204 v. (N. Dist. of Oklahoma) (D.C. No. 91-CR-92E) KENNETH N. POWELL, Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist th..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 25 1997
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 96-5204
v. (N. Dist. of Oklahoma)
(D.C. No. 91-CR-92E)
KENNETH N. POWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Kenneth N. Powell, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of
his motion for recovery of currency and property brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
P. 41(e). In his motion, Powell alleged that he was entitled to the return of
certain property forfeited through judicial forfeiture proceedings to the United
States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 881(a). Powell contended that the Orders and
Judgments of Forfeiture forfeiting the currency and property to the United States
were invalid because he did not receive proper notice of the forfeiture
proceedings. The district court denied Powell’s motion, holding that the United
States’ attempted service of the complaint at both of Powell’s known residences,
as well as its attempted service on Powell’s attorney and constructive notice by
publication, were “‘reasonably calculated to give [Powell] actual notice of the
forfeiture proceedings.’” Dist. Ct. Order at 3 (quoting United States v. 51 Pieces
of Real Property,
17 F.3d 1306, 1317 (10th Cir. 1994)).
“Whether the government employed means reasonably calculated to provide
[Powell] actual notice is a question of fact which we review for clear error.” 51
Pieces of Real
Property, 17 F.3d at 1316 (citation omitted). This court has
considered the district court order, the parties’ briefs and contentions, and the
entire record on appeal. Finding no clear error, we AFFIRM for substantially the
reasons set out in the district court’s Order dated August 8, 1996.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-2-