The preponderance of the evidence standard requires only that the relevant facts be more likely true than not. SeeUnited States v. Gibson, 309 Fed.Appx. 754, 755 (4th Cir. 2009) (per curium) (citing United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 461 (4th Cir. 2004)).

The preponderance of the evidence standard requires only that the relevant facts be more likely true than not. See United States v. Gibson, 309 Fed.Appx. 754, 755 (4th Cir. 2009) (per curium) (citing United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 461 (4th Cir. 2004)). III. Analysis

Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the claimant "must present reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of such sufficient quality and quantity that a reasonable [judge] could conclude that the existence of the facts supporting the claim are more probable than their nonexistence." United States Steel Mining Co., Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 187 F.3d 384, 389 (4th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Gibson, 309 Fed. Appx. 754, 755 (4th Cir. 2004); United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456,461 (4th Cir. 2004). Here, Mr. Charles hypothesizes that the Little Giant ladder was designed in an unreasonably dangerous manner because of an unsafe amount of deflection that occured in the ladder during regular use.

"Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the relevant facts must be shown to be more likely true than not." United States v. Gibson, 2009 WL 180284, at *1 (4th Cir. Jan. 27, 2009) (citing United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 461 (4th Cir. 2004)). Moreover, where the Government contends that property was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a criminal offense, such as illicit drug trafficking, the Government must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a "substantial connection" exists between the property to be forfeited and the criminal activity prohibited by statute.