The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stiehl, District Judge
Before the Court are several pending motions relating to the forfeiture of property in this matter. Upon review of the record, and in light of the mandate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirming this Court's denial of defendant/petitioner's motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255, see Baker v. United States, 02-115-WDS, affirmed, 07-1938 (November 2, 2007), the Court rules as follows:
In light of the mandate from the Seventh Circuit affirming the Court's rulings on petitioner's habeas petition (See, Doc. 67) and denial of petitioner's motion to alter or amend (See Doc. 73), the Court hereby lifts all stays previously entered. The government's motion to verify status of forfeiture issues (Doc. 322) and renewed motion (Doc. 325), to which the defendant has filed responses (Docs. 323, 326), are, therefore, GRANTED, and the Court further GRANTS the government's previously filed motion for interlocutory sale (Doc. 316). The Court has previously determined that there are no third party interests (See Order at Doc. 254), and accordingly FINDS that the government may sell the following property, and transfer said property from the custody of the United States Marshal:
The real estate described as follows:
Lots No. 174, 175, 176, 1777, 201, 202, 207, and 224 in Block No. 16 in the "Town of Brooklyn"; reference being had to the Plat thereof recorded in the Recorder's Office of St. Clair County, Illinois, in Book of Deeds "I" on pages 348 and 349, situated in St. Clair County, in the State of Illinois.
AND Lot No. 208 in Block No. 16 in the "Town of Brooklyn"; reference being had to the Plat thereof recorded in the Recorder's Office of St. Clair County, in Book of Deeds "I" on pages 348 and 349, situated in St. Clair County, in the State of Illinois.
All proceeds from the sale of the property in question are subject to the forfeiture provisions of Count 23, 18 U.S.C. §982, in the amount of $4,407,592, all as more fully set forth in the Court's Order of October 21, 1999 (See United States v. Baker, 82 F. Supp.2d 936 (S.D. Ill. 1999)).
Defendant's motion for return of property post-trial (Doc. 311) is accordingly DENIED.
WILLIAM D. STIEHL DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...