UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1418
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT N. THOMPSON,
Claimant - Appellant,
and
$4,629.00 IN U. S. CURRENCY,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
(CA-04-225-7)
Submitted: July 20, 2005 Decided: August 8, 2005
Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert N. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, John
Leslie Brownlee, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Robert N. Thompson appeals a district court’s final
judgment granting summary judgment to the United States and
forfeiting seized currency to the United States. The Government
sought to forfeit $4629.00 in currency seized when Thompson was a
passenger in a vehicle suspected of being involved in some drug
activity. We affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s order granting
summary judgment and view the facts in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party. Price v. Thompson, 380 F.3d 209, 212 (4th
Cir. 2004). Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue
of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); United
States Dep’t of Labor v. North Carolina Growers Ass’n, 377 F.3d
345, 350 (4th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment will be granted unless
a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on
the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 251-52 (1986).
Under 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1) (2000), the Government must
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the seized
property is subject to forfeiture. Id. Furthermore, § 983(c)(3)
provides that “if the Government's theory of forfeiture is that the
property was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a
criminal offense, or was involved in the commission of a criminal
- 3 -
offense, the Government shall establish that there was a
substantial connection between the property and the offense.” Id.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that no reasonable jury
could fail to find that the money at issue was used to facilitate
drug transactions.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s final
judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -