Opinion
CRIMINAL 1:20-CR-19
08-01-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM MAYLEN CRAYTON, II, Defendant.
KLEEH, JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTIONS, [ECF NOS. 47, 50], BE DENIED AS MOOT
MICHAEL JOHN ALOI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pending before the undersigned Magistrate Judge are Defendant William Maylen Crayton, II's pro se motions for the return of funds. [ECF Nos. 47, 50]. By Order dated July 6, 2022, [ECF No. 54], United States District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh referred the motions to the undersigned to enter a report and recommendation as to the appropriate disposition of the motions.
The undersigned is also in receipt of the Government's Response, [ECF No. 55], wherein, the Government explains that all funds seized in this matter by law enforcement have since been returned to Defendant's representative, as contemplated by Defendant's pro se motions. The Government requests the Court deny the Defendant's pro se motions as moot, and further advises, that Defendant's counsel does not object to the motions being denied as moot.
Based on a detailed review of Defendant's pro se motions, [ECF Nos. 47, 50], and the Government's response, the undersigned RECOMMENDS Defendant's pro se motions for the return of funds, [ECF Nos. 47, 50], be DENIED AS MOOT as set forth herein.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 17, 2020, a Grand Jury returned a four-count indictment against Defendant William Maylen Crayton, II (“Crayton”), charging him in Count One with Possession with Intent to Distribute at Least 50 Grams of Methamphetamine, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), in Counts Two and Three with Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C), and in Count Four with Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). [ECF No. 1].
Thereafter, on January 4, 2021, the parties, the Government, by Assistant United States Attorney Brandon S. Flower, and Defendant Crayton, by videoconference and by counsel Brian J. Kornbrath, appeared before the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge for a change of plea hearing wherein Defendant proceeded to enter a verbal plea of guilty, without a written plea agreement, to the felony charges contained in Counts One, Two, Three, and Four of the Indictment. [ECF Nos. 35, 38]. The following day, January 5, 2021, the undersigned submitted a Report and Recommendation recommending that Defendant's plea of guilty to Count One, Count Two, Count Three, and Count Four of the Indictment, without a written plea agreement, be accepted conditioned upon the Court's receipt and review of this Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 38]. On January 26, 2021, the Court entered an Order, [ECF No. 39], adopting the Report and Recommendation, accepting Defendant's guilty plea and scheduling sentencing for June 1, 2021.
On June 1, 2021, sentencing was held before District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh as to Defendant William Maylen Crayton, II. [ECF No. 21]. Defendant was sentenced to one hundred and sixty-four (164) months imprisonment as to each of Counts One, Two, Three, and Four, with all such terms to run concurrently, four (4) years of supervised release as to Count One and three (3) years of supervised as to each of Counts Two, Three, and Four, with all such terms to run concurrently, and a four hundred dollar ($400.00) total special mandatory assessment. [ECF No. 44].
On May 18, 2022, Defendant filed, pro se, a Motion for Return of Funds, [ECF No. 47], seeking the return of funds seized from him by law enforcement which were not subject to forfeiture in this case. In this pro se Motion, Defendant asserts that, at his sentencing, Judge Kleeh inquired as to seizure of such funds and asked, “What will happened to the money that was taken from Mr. Crayton then?” Id. Defendant represents that Assistant United States Attorney Brandon Flower replied, “I believe that it will be returned to Mr. Crayton, Your Honor.” Id. Defendant asserts, in his motion, that in time since his sentencing, he has not received or heard anything regarding the return of funds and further asserts that his attorney will not answer his communications. Defendant requests the Court's assistance in the return of funds.
On the same date, the Court entered an order directing the Government to file a response to Defendant's pro se motion on or before June 3, 2022. [ECF No. 48].
On May 20, 2022, Defendant filed, pro se, another Motion for Return of Funds, [ECF No. 50], articulating the same facts as his previous motion regarding the forfeiture discussion at his sentencing hearing, and again requesting the Court's assistance in securing the return of funds.
On July 6, 2022, United States District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh entered an Order, [ECF No. 54], referring Defendant's pro se motions to the undersigned to enter a report and recommendation as to the appropriate disposition of the motions.
On the same day, the Government, by Assistant United States Attorney Brandon S. Flower (“AUSA Flower”), filed its Response to the Defendant's Motions for the Return of Funds. [ECF No. 55]. In the Response, the Government provides that on May 27, 2022, AUSA Flower attempted to contact Defendant's counsel as well as staff at USP Big Sandy, where Defendant is presently incarcerated, to ascertain who might be the proper representative of Defendant to whom the Greater Harrison County Drug Task Force (“GHCDTF”) could return his funds. Id. at 1. The Government further represents that on June 9, 2022, counsel for the Defendant provided AUSA Flower with contact information for a representative for Defendant to whom the GHCDTF could provide his funds and AUSA Flower forwarded this information to the GHCDTF. Id. Lastly, the Government explains that on June 27, 2022, AUSA Flower received an email from Defendant's counsel confirming that Defendant's representative obtained the funds on his behalf from the GHCDTF. Id.
Based upon the return of funds by the GHCDTF to Defendant's chosen representative, the Government requests that Defendant's motions be denied as moot. Id. at 2. The Government notes that Defendant's counsel does not object to the motions being denied as moot. Id. at 2.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
Pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853 and Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1), a person convicted of offenses charged in an indictment ‘shall forfeit . . . any property' that was derived from the commission of these offenses. See United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 607 (1989)(citing 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)). The Government may “seize property based upon a find of probable cause to believe that the property will ultimately be proved forfeitable.” Monsanto, 491 U.S. at 615 (citing United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983); Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974)).
III. ANALYSIS
There is no dispute in this matter that the funds seized by the GHCDTF were not subject to forfeiture and, thus, should have been returned to Defendant Crayton. Since the filing of Defendant's pro se motions, it has been represented to the Court, by counsel for the Government, without opposition by Defendant's counsel, that such funds have been rightfully returned to Defendant by way of his chosen representative.
Accordingly, where Defendant has already received the funds requested, the undersigned FINDS the issues presented in Defendant's pro se motion to be MOOT and RECOMMENDS that the Court DENY Defendant's pro se Motions for the Return of Funds, [ECF Nos. 47, 50], as MOOT.
IV. CONCLUSION
Thus, for the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant's pro se Motions for the Return of Funds, [ECF Nos. 47, 50], be DENIED as MOOT.
Any party shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of filing this Report and Recommendation within which to file with the Clerk of this Court, specific written objections, identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection. A copy of such objections should also be submitted to the United States District Judge. Objections shall not exceed ten (10) typewritten pages or twenty (20) handwritten pages, including exhibits, unless accompanied by a motion for leave to exceed the page limitations, consistent with LR PL P 12.
Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transmit copies of this Report and Recommendation to Defendant William Maylen Crayton, II, by certified mail, and to counsel of record as provided in the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.