NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-36052
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01463-MA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
$17,980.00 IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY,
Defendant,
DONNA DICKSON,
Claimant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 9, 2017**
Portland, Oregon
Before: BYBEE and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,*** Senior District
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Judge.
After obtaining a search warrant, Oregon police officers seized $17,980 in
cash from a package that a drug-sniffing dog had alerted to while it was offloaded
from an airplane. Donna Dickson originally claimed a possessory interest in the
seized cash in the ensuing forfeiture proceeding but, after the close of discovery,
sought leave to amend her claim to assert an ownership interest. The district court
denied leave to amend and granted summary judgment to the government,
concluding that Dickson lacked standing to challenge the forfeiture. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
1. The district court did not err in finding probable cause to institute forfeiture
proceedings against the $17,980 as proceeds traceable to an exchange for controlled
substances or used or intended to be used to facilitate such a transaction. See 21
U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). An experienced narcotics detective averred that a number of
facts were consistent with drug trafficking, including a positive alert by a trained
narcotics canine, suspicious packaging, and inaccurate and incomplete sender and
recipient information. The government thus established more than a “mere
suspicion” that the $17,980 was related to an illegal drug transaction. See United
States v. $493,850.00 in U.S. Currency, 518 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2008).
2. The district court did not err in holding that Dickson lacked standing to
challenge the forfeiture. Dickson’s “bare assertion of an ownership or possessory
2
interest, in the absence of some other evidence, is not enough to survive a motion
for summary judgment.” See United States v. $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672
F.3d 629, 638 (9th Cir. 2012). We therefore need not consider whether the district
court abused its discretion in denying Dickson’s motion for leave to amend.
AFFIRMED.
3