Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “United States v. $9,173.00 UNITED STATES CURRENCY”
MEMORANDUM OPINION STARK, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: Presently before the Court is Shawn Baker’s motion to dismiss. For the following reasons, the Court will deny the motion. I. BACKGROUND On June 16, 2015, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) seized $614,338.00 from Shawn Baker during a traffic stop.1 (See D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 4—14; D.I. 16-1
United States v. $255,427.15 in U.S. Currencypublic domain
ORDER J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on Claimants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. no. 43.) In their motion, Claimants seek dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaint or in the alternative pray that summary judgment be granted in their favor.1 To the extent set forth in this Order, Claimants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIE
747 F.Supp.2d 49 (2010) FIDELITY INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY ADVISOR A FUND, LLC, BY the TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Fidelity High Tech Advisor a Fund, LLC, by the Tax Matters Partner, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant. Civil Nos. 05-40151-FDS, 06-40130-FDS, 06-40243-FDS, 06-40244-FDS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 22-898 (RDM) $9,781,900.00 OF FUNDS IN THE NAME OF FALCON STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an in rem action seeking forfeiture of funds that
Flint v. United Statespublic domain
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 21-1202T Filed: August 23, 2022 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** STEPHANIE L. FLINT AND DAVID J. * JONES, AS EXECUTORS OF THE * ESTATE OF MARGARET J. JONES, * * Plaintiffs, *
United States v. Stamatios Kousisispublic domain
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ Nos. 19-3679 & 19-3774 _____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STAMATIOS KOUSISIS, a/k/a Tom Kousisis, Appellant in No. 19-3679 UNIT
United States v. Sullivan, Bilda, Rankinpublic domain
23-6559-cr(L) United States v. Sullivan, Bilda, Rankin UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ___________________________________ August Term, 2023 Argued: May 13, 2024 Decided: September 6, 2024 Docket Nos. 23-6559, 23-6608, 23-6609, 23-7875, 23-7882, 23-7887, 24-91 ____________
Cannon v. United Statespublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LIONEL CANNON, AKA Cannon, No. 24-1317 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 5:19-cv-02337- FLA-SP v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OPINION
United States of America v. Google LLCpublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) ) GOOGLE LLC,
OPINION BY Judge RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER. 4 Rafael Falette appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County (common pleas) that granted the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's (Commonwealth) petition for forfeiture (Petition) of $34,440 under the Controlled Substances Forfeiture
Koam Engineering Services, Inc. v. United Statespublic domain
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 22-816C Filed: November 30, 2022 Redacted Version Issued for Publication: February 10, 20231 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** KOAM ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC., * * * Protestor,
United States v. Kingpublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: FORFEITURE STEPHEN P. FRIOT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Table of Contents I. Introduction... 881 A. The Criminal Charges.. .882 B. The Trials and Convictions... 883 C. The Moving Papers and Evidentiary Hearing.. .884 II. Authority for Forfeiture... 886 A
United States v. Jung Joo Parkpublic domain
HON. JORGE L. ALONSO, United States District Judge Plaintiff, the United States of America, brings this action against surviving family members of Que Te Park to collect a financial penalty assessed against him for failing to report his foreign bank accounts. His children, defendants Charles C. Park, James Park, and Nina Park, have moved *565to
Mortgage Contracting Services, LLC v. United Statespublic domain
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 20-1230C Filed: February 7, 2021 Redacted Version Issued for Publication: March 18, 20211 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * MORTGAGE CONTRACTING * SERVICES, LLC, * *
United States v. Melotpublic domain
MURPHY, Circuit Judge. I. Introduction After a jury trial, appellant Bill Melot was convicted of one count of corruptly endeavoring to impede the administration of the Internal Revenue Code, one count of attempting to evade or defeat tax, six counts of willful failure to file, and seven counts of making false statements to the Department of Agricultur
United States v. Hopkinspublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES 0. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 16, 2012 (Doc. 66); (ii) the Defendants’ Motion for Leave of Court to Reply to Plaintiffs’ Reply to Hopkins’ Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, filed September 4, 2012 (Doc. 106) (“Motion for Surreply”); and (iii) the Defe
United States v. Dupreepublic domain
781 F.Supp.2d 115 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, v. Courtney DUPREE, Thomas Foley, and Rodney Watts, Defendants. No. 10-CR-627 (KAM). United States District Court, E.D. New York. March 18, 2011. *120 Michael Lloyd Yaeger, United States Attorneys Office, Brooklyn, NY, for United States of America. Roscoe C. Howard, Andrew
United States v. $263,327.95public domain
OPINION WILLIAM J. MARTINI, District Judge. Plaintiff United States of America (the “Government”) brings this civil forfeiture action to forfeit and condemn a total of $263,327.95. This matter comes before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by Claimant Steve N. Chan (“Chan”). There was no oral argument. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
United States v. Lazarenkopublic domain
564 F.3d 1026 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pavel Ivanovich LAZARENKO, Pavlo Ivanovych Lazarenko, Defendant-Appellant. No. 06-10592. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 9, 2008. Filed April 10, 2009. *1029 Dennis P. Riordan (argued), Donald M. Horgan,
United States v. Laypublic domain
568 F.Supp.2d 791 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Mark D. LAY, Defendant. No. 1:07 CR 339. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. July 8, 2008. *792 Benita Y. Pearson, Antoinette T. Bacon, for Plaintiff or Petitioner. Percy Squire, Richard M. Kerger, for Defendant or Respondent. </