UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20929
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
$8,720.00, Etc.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
RUMALDO SOLIS,
Defendant-Claimant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-99-CV-1648)
June 20, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rumaldo Solis, pro se, appeals the summary judgment granted
the Government in this forfeiture action. Solis contends the
district court erred in: determining he lacked standing to contest
the forfeiture; and not granting his motion to dismiss.
In 1994, the FBI executed a search warrant on Solis’
residence, finding at least $30,050 in currency. Shortly
thereafter, the Government initiated administrative forfeiture
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
proceedings concerning that currency; Solis received notice and
claimed ownership. Almost two years later, Solis pleaded guilty to
conspiring to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. As
part of his plea agreement, Solis agreed to forfeit any interest he
may have in any drug-related or money laundering-related asset.
Several years later, in 1999, the Government filed a complaint for
forfeiture against the $30,050 in currency, alleging it represented
the proceeds of drug trafficking or that it was, or was intended to
be, used in exchange for drugs or to facilitate a drug offense.
It goes without saying that “[a]s a predicate to any action
before a federal court, parties must establish that they have
proper standing to raise a claim”. United States v. $38,570 United
States Currency, 950 F.2d 1108, 1111 n.3 (5th Cir. 1992). In order
to meet the threshold requirements of standing, a party seeking to
challenge the Government’s forfeiture of property must demonstrate
at least a facially colorable lawful interest in the seized item.
Id. at 1112. While the fact that property was seized from a
claimant is prima facie evidence of his entitlement to it, the
claimant must, nevertheless, come forward with additional evidence
of ownership if there are serious reasons to doubt his right to the
property. Id. at 1112 n.5.
In this case, the Government has established there are serious
reasons to doubt Solis’ right to the currency seized from him. As
noted, as part of his plea agreement, Solis agreed to forfeit his
interest in any drug-related asset, and at his rearraignment
hearing, Solis acknowledged under oath that he had agreed to
2
forfeit the currency. Additionally, in a May 1997 letter and a
September 1999 appellate brief in a related case, Solis again
acknowledged his agreement to forfeit the currency.
Solis has not produced sufficient evidence to establish that
he has a facially colorable interest in the seized currency,
particularly in the light of his statements otherwise. See id. at
1112 & n.5 (“a bare assertion of ownership of the res, without
more, is inadequate to prove an ownership interest sufficient to
establish standing”). Therefore, the district court did not err in
concluding that Solis lacked standing to contest the forfeiture.
AFFIRMED
3