USA v. Rufus Sumlin, (8th Cir. 2002)
Linked as:
Text
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-3249
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tract I, Apartment Complex, Real Property Located Within The City of Sikeston, Scott County, Missouri described as All of Lots Numbered 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, in Block Numbered 7 of Fairground Addition in the City of Sikeston, Scott County, Missouri; Tract II, Business Building, All of Lots Numbered 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Block Numbered 7 of Fairground Addition in the City of Sikeston, Scott County, Missouri, Defendants, Rufus J. Sumlin; Ella Sumlin, Movants-Appellants.
Submitted: April 5, 2002 Filed: April 8, 2002
Before LOKEN, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The United States brought this action under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) (1994), seeking forfeiture of two tracts of real property owned by Rufus and Ella Sumlin. After a bench trial, the district court1 ordered the properties forfeited to the government. On appeal the Sumlins argue that the district court should have granted Ella Sumlin§ 985 (adding notice requirements), improperly found that the Sumlins could have prevented drug trade on their property, and erred in forfeiting both tracts. After careful review of the record, we affirm.
We conclude that these arguments fail because (1) the denial of summary judgment is unreviewable after a full trial on the merits, see Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Golden Triangle, 121 F.3d 351, 354-55 (8th Cir. 1997); (2) the 2000 amendments to section 985 are not applicable to actions filed in 1998, see 18 U.S.C. § 985 historical and statutory notes; Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-185, § 21, 114 Stat. 202, 225 (2000); (3) the district court did not err in holding that the Sumlins failed to establish they were "innocent owners," see 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) (1994), amended by Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act § 2(c)(2); Sawheny v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int§ 881(a)(7).
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
[UNPUBLISHED]
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[1] The HONORABLE CATHERINE D. PERRY, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York Corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Golden Triangle, a General Partnership; Golden Triangle Partners Ii, a General Partnership; Hamilton Associates, a General Partnership; Bluffs West Partnership, a General Partnership; Bradley A. Hoyt; Steven B. Hoyt; Bruce K. Hoyt; and Michelle L. Hoyt, Defendants/Appellees.
- U.S. Code - Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure - 18 USC 985 - Sec. 985. Civil forfeiture of real property
- US Code - Title 21: Food and Drugs - 21 USC 881 - Sec. 881. Forfeitures
See other documents that cite the same legislation
