From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Ramey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Feb 11, 2013
Case No. 3:11CR094 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 3:11CR094

02-11-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM RAMEY, Defendant.


Judge Timothy S. Black


FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE

OF DEFENDANT WILLIAM RAMEY'S ASSETS

WHEREAS, on June 25, 2012, this Court entered a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, (Doc. 11) and an Amended Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (Doc. 13) on August 30, 2012 ordering the forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §853(a)(1) and (2), of the following property:

(a) 2010 Chevrolet Camaro, VIN#2G1FK1EJ6A9120266;
(b) 1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, VIN#3J67K2M168830;
(c) $136,015.00 in U.S. Currency;
(d) Norinco (North China Industries) SKS Sporter Rifle CAL:762 SN:9320379;
(e) Ruger MINI-14 Rifle CAL:223 SN:186-96137;
(f) 222 Rounds Wolf Ammunition CAL:762; and
(g) HP Pavilion Elite Tower Type Computer, SN#CNX7501CXT, with cord;

WHEREAS, the United States published notice of this forfeiture action and the intent of the United States to dispose of the property in accordance with law, and further notified all parties of their right to petition the Court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of their alleged interest in the property, beginning on August 22, 2012 and continuing for at least thirty (30) consecutive days, on the www. forfeiture. gov website; and

WHEREAS, the United States did not send direct written notice of the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture because there was no person who reasonably appeared to be a potential claimant with standing to contest the forfeiture of the property in an ancillary proceeding; and

WHEREAS, no timely petition has been filed to the property listed above; and

WHEREAS, the Defendant was sentenced and a Judgment was entered on October 17, 2012 and that Judgment ordered the forfeiture of the above-referenced property; and

WHEREAS, the Court finds that defendant had an interest in the property; the United States has established the requisite nexus between the property and the offense; and the United States has established that the property is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §853(a)(1) and (2);

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (Doc. 11) and the Amended Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (Doc. 13), ordering the forfeiture, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §853(a)(l) and (2) of the following property:

(a) 2010 Chevrolet Camaro, VIN#2G1FK1EJ6A9120266;
(b) 1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, VIN#3J67K2M168830;
(c) $136,015.00 in U.S. Currency;
(d) Norinco (North China Industries) SKS Sporter Rifle CAL:762 SN:9320379;
(e) Ruger MIN1-14 Rifle CAL:223 SN:186-96137;
(f) 222 Rounds Wolf Ammunition CAL:762; and
(g) HP Pavilion Elite Tower Type Computer, SN#CNX7501CXT, with cord;
is final; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all right, title and interest to the property described above is hereby condemned, forfeited and vested in the United States of America and the United States has clear title to the property described above; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the custodian of the property is hereby authorized to dispose of the property in accordance with the law; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the United States District Court shall retain jurisdiction in the case for the purpose of enforcing this Final Order of Forfeiture. SO ORDERED:

____________________

TIMOTHY S. BLACK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Ramey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Feb 11, 2013
Case No. 3:11CR094 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Ramey

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM RAMEY, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Feb 11, 2013

Citations

Case No. 3:11CR094 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2013)