ON REHEARING
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7586
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PATRICK EDWARDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CR-00-136)
Submitted: March 22, 2006 Decided: June 7, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, William Edward
Fitzpatrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Edwards appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for return of administratively forfeited
property. The district court determined that the notice provided
by the Government was constitutionally adequate. We disagree. No
attempt was apparently made to serve Edwards with notice of the
forfeiture proceeding either in person or at the location at which
he was then-incarcerated by federal authorities, despite the facts
that (1) he made an initial court appearance in the Alexandria
Division of the Eastern District of Virginia, the district and
division in which the forfeiture proceeding was initiated, on the
very day notice of the forfeiture proceeding was sent to the Wayne
County Jail in Detroit, an attorney’s address in Detroit, and a
residential address in Chicago; (2) he made a second court
appearance in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of
Virginia the very day notice of the forfeiture proceeding was
published in The Wall Street Journal; and (3) he remained in
federal custody during the entire period in which the
administrative forfeiture action remained pending. Under these
circumstances, we conclude that notice was not reasonably
calculated to apprise Edwards of the pendency of the action of
forfeiture. See United States v. Minor, 228 F.3d 352 (4th Cir.
2000). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court
and remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument
- 2 -
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -