Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
301, 305 n.5 (2d Cir. 1997). His motion was untimely, as the district
court correctly found.
Harvey is not, as he contends, entitled to application of the rule
announced in United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510
U.S. 43 (1993). In Good, the Supreme Court declared that the seizure
of real property without a pre-seizure hearing violated the owner's
due process rights. See id. at 46. The remedy for a Good violation is
to release to the owner of the property the profits or rent which the
owner lost during the period of the illegal seizure. See United States
v. Marsh, 105 F.3d 927, 931 (4th Cir. 1997).
To the extent that Good applies to criminal forfeitures, it applies
only to cases that were pending at the time Good was announced. See
id., 105 F.3d at 931. As the forfeiture in this case was accomplished
long before the Good decision, Harvey may not benefit from the
Good rule.
We therefore affirm the decision of the district court. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4