Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Torres-Colon, 1st Cir. (1994)
United States v. Torres-Colon, 1st Cir. (1994)
No. 93-1452
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
ONE URBAN LOT LOCATED AT ROAD 143 K 36.1
BAUTA ABAJO WARD OROCOVIS, PR., ET AL.,
Defendant, Appellee,
_____________________
ELVIN TORRES-COLON,
Claimant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
COFFIN,
from
a judgment
of the
District of Puerto
United
Court for
the
March 1992,
States District
Colon appeals
In
Elvis Torres
Background
__________
the United
States
initiated a
forfeiture
action
143 K.
36.1 Bauta
U.S.C.
881(a)(6),
Puerto Rico,
under 21
981(a)(1)(A).1
The
used by claimant
Torres
Colon as
meeting
place to
discuss
an illegal
drug
his
money.2
drug
transactions
Torres
Colon
for the
purpose
subsequently
was
of
laundering the
prosecuted
scheme.
for
his
On January
days
later, a
bench
trial
was
held in
the
civil
In this
case,
____________________
121 U.S.C.
881(a)(6) and (a)(7)
are part of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Control and Prevention Act, and provide
for forfeiture to the government of property connected with
illegal drug transactions.
18 U.S.C.
981(a)(1)(A) is part of
the Money Laundering
Control Act, and also
provides for
forfeiture
of
property
traceable
to
money
laundering
transactions.
the district court found that between 1989 and 1991, Torres Colon
was
involved in
brought in more
three illegal
drug
distribution schemes
proceeds.
that
Although
he
reported no
income
between
1986 and
thousand dollars,
drug
Based on these
support a
Colon made
schemes
than
distribution
and less
this
1988,
many bank
deposits of
several
took place
at
defendant
of the
property.
the property be
that
complaint,
claims that
defendant
thus
judgment on three
property
invalidating
the district
was
grounds.
misidentified
the court's
court erred in
in
He
the
judgment.
He also
refusing to
shift the
criminal
court's factual
case.
Finally,
findings
he
challenges
as unsupported,
the district
particularly
to
the
the
government's
descriptions of
two
complaint
different
pieces
this
of
property.
property is identified as
-3-
case
on appeal
contained
In
the
Located at
Rico."
Road 143 K.
The description of
him
to
Orocovis, Puerto
know
which
discrepancy made it
property
was
subject
to
time before
miscarriage of
this court,
He may not
absent
F.2d 890,
a showing
that a
Id.; Johnston
___ ________
894 (1st
Cir. 1979).
grave
v. Holiday
_______
He falls
far
even were
Colon's contention
forfeited
property
Admiralty
Rule
Admiralty
and
that the
C(2)
property subject
U.S.C.
with
of
981(b)(2);
properly
before us,
government failed
Torres
to identify
sufficient particularity
would
the
for
Supplemental
Maritime Claims,
this claim
applicable
States
to
fail.
Certain
both forfeiture
required in describing
21
v.
Rules
the
U.S.C.
Approximately
881(b); 18
2,538.85
______________
_______________________
that
complaint
"shall
describe
with
This rule
reasonable
____________________
particularity the
The complaint
its
property that is
should achieve a
description,
which is
the subject of
the action."
"meaningful level of
sufficient
to put
the
detail" in
claimant on
384-390 West
____________
(A), we are
The complaint
at
of particular
violations of the drug and money laundering laws, and bought with
the proceeds of
each
Following
Such
clear focus
to us,
on the
Orocovis property.
It
Colon was
seems
on notice
note, in
addition,
this conclusion.
that
For
Torres
example,
property interest" in
contents
of the
Colon's
in his
own
answer to
that he had a
at
this
actions
address.
the
"real
143 K.
had forfeited
Also,
the
-5-
and the
-6-
III.
981, the
proof is provided
(incorporating
981(d) (same);
19 U.S.C.
procedures);
1615
burdens of
See 21 U.S.C.
___
881(d)
forfeitures); 18 U.S.C.
(codifying customs
forfeiture
881(a)
Id. at
___
Once the
830, 833
showing, the
of the
evidence, "that
of the
the property
statute or that it
consent."
914
in violation
United States
_____________
Emery Street,
_____________
F.2d
knowledge or
(1st
Cir.
1990);
see
___
also
____
burden of
proof to
the
claimant to
defend his
property.
____________________
Following
his
Torres Colon
later
acquittal in
the
related
criminal case,
burden of
He claims
in the
facilitate a criminal
burden
that the
of proving
property was
that the
used for
a specified
illegal
civil
purpose.
in nature,
criminal trials.
An acquittal
civil case,
of proof differs
at issue
from that in
prescribed by statute.
to
in the
much lighter
v. One Parcel of Real Property Known as Plat 20, Lot 17, Great
______________________________________________________________
Harbor Neck, New Shoreham, Rhode Island, 960 F.2d
________________________________________
The
outcome of
related criminal
proceedings
against Torres Colon therefore does not affect the probable cause
determination,
trial.
or the burden
See, e.g.,
___ ____
shifting, in the
civil forfeiture
-8-
IV.
_____________________________________
Torres Colon
also challenges
findings as unsupported
by credible evidence.
the district
court's factual
of
this
scheme.
testimony
was
Torres
not
Colon contends
believable, and
was
that
much
contradicted
of
this
by other
witnesses.
We review the district court's
trial
Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, 972 F.2d 453, 457 (1st Cir. 1992).
___
______________________
Under
this standard, we
United States v.
______________
(1948).
the
When
record
evidence
333 U.S.
supports
364, 395
conflicting
erroneous.
Furthermore, when
Cumberland
Farms,
__________________
972
F.2d
based on
greater
district court.
deference to the
at
462.
determinations
demands even
Rodriguez-Morales v.
_________________
review
of
the
record
finds ample
support
for
the
district
court's factual
entitled
to
believe
findings.
witness
The
testimony
district
court
that established
was
that
-9-
Torres Colon
involving
participated in
more
than
one
received a substantial
million
dollars
of
drugs; that
schemes
he
the sale of
the
planning
schemes took
meeting for
place at
competing testimony
defendant
of another
one
of
the drug
distribution
property, notwithstanding
witness that
this meeting
the
took
at a
time when
he
had three
dependent children
and
illegal drug
that
it
proceeds,
was reasonable
supports the
to
believe
lower court's
that defendant
argument in
this case,
Torres Colon
He attached a copy
trial, the
certificate
for
government
put
which established a
defendant property.
From
into
evidence
February 7, 1990
our review
of
registry
purchase date
the record,
it
the complaint.
It therefore appears
-10-
that the
motion
deed provided
accurately
by Torres
reflects
Colon with
September
his post-argument
purchase
date
for
defendant property.
appeal, however.
assumption
described in
that
At
defendant
subpart
(A) of
subject to forfeiture.
in subpart
trial, both
property,
the
parties proceeded
and
on the
not
the
property
complaint, was
the
property
incorrect description
registry certificate,
36.1
Bauta
Abajo
Ward,
Orocovis,
Puerto
Rico,
and
had
Nor did
addition,
forfeiture
of
purchased.
the
evidence
defendant
The
at
trial
amply
property, regardless
evidence
showed that
between
of
supported
when
1989 and
it was
1991,
whose street
value was
Torres Colon
received
disproportionately
large share
of
these proceeds.
less than
$24,000.
During
this period,
Colon bought
his reported
-11-
earnings.
of
with
trafficking.
wrong registry
Thus, even
though the
government introduced
the
in this case.
-12-