United States of America v. Shigemura

Pro se prisoner Defendant-Appellant Edward Shigemura appealed the denial of his motion for the return of seized property. In 2009, Defendant was pulled over by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, who searched the car he was driving and found, among other things, five loaded handguns, a rifle, and $62,368.93 in cash. Defendant was arrested, indicted, and later found guilty of being a felon in possession of firearms. Before trial, the federal government obtained a seizure warrant for the $62,368.93 as money furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance. Defendant received notice of the administrative seizure, which included information on how and when to contest the forfeiture, and how and when to file for remission or mitigation of the forfeiture. Defendant did not file a claim to contest the forfeiture, and the FBI issued a Declaration of Forfeiture. Defendant did not appeal the declaration, but filed for remission or mitigation which was ultimately denied. Over a year later, Defendant sought the return of a portion of the money he claimed was his, plus other personal property seized at the time of his arrest. The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction because Defendant failed to challenge the forfeiture through the administrative process. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction because Defendant failed to contest the forfeiture of the cash. But the government conceded that certain items of personal property were not included in the forfeiture action, and might be recoverable. The Court remanded the case to the district court to consider the legal and factual issues relating to Defendant's claim.