855 F. 2d 863 - United States v. Fifty-Five Thousand (55000) Yards of Polyester Fabric
855 F2d 863 United States v. Fifty-Five Thousand (55000) Yards of Polyester Fabric
855 F.2d 863
Unpublished Disposition
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND (55,000) YARDS OF POLYESTER FABRIC, Defendant,
and
Gold Textile Company, Claimant-Appellant.
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Advertisement
No. 87-6472.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
ARGUED AND SUBMITTED AUG. 4, 1988.
DECIDED Aug. 17, 1988.
Before FARRIS and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges, and M.D. CROCKER*, Senior District Judge.
MEMORANDUM**
To determine whether a due process violation occurred, we consider four factors: the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, attempts by Gold Textile to initiate judicial forfeiture proceedings, and prejudice to Gold Textile. United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555, 564 (1983). Although the two delays complained of were substantial the trial court could properly find that they were justified. $8,850 recognized that pending administrative proceedings and ongoing criminal investigations can justify delay in instituting a civil forfeiture proceeding. Id. at 566-67. Here, Gold Textile sought administrative relief in June 1984 shortly after the first shipment of Korean fabric was seized. Gold Textile first asked the government to initiate judicial forfeiture proceedings in February 1986, when administrative proceedings were still pending. Further justification for the delay is found in the government's criminal investigation. After seizing Gold Textile's fabric, the government diligently pursued a criminal investigation of Gold Textile, twenty-six importers, and several suppliers suspected of circumventing quotas on the importation of Korean fabric. The investigation was necessarily time consuming. It was conducted in three countries in the face of resistance from foreign governmental officials and private businesses, and required the processing of thousands of documents.
Gold Textile does not allege nor is there a basis for an allegation that the delay hampered its ability to present a defense in the civil forfeiture proceedings. See id. at 569 (due process inquiry is whether delay has hampered claimant's ability to present defense). The alleged prejudice is that the fabric declined in value during the delay. Under $8,850, this allegation is irrelevant for purposes of determining whether a procedural due process violation has occurred.
AFFIRMED.