United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
October 13, 2005.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BRENT BIGLER and JEFF BIGLER, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHRISTOPHER CONNER, District Judge
FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE AS TO DEFENDANTS BRENT BIGLER AND JEFF
Upon the proceedings had heretofore and upon Motion of the
United States of America, the Court finds:
A Preliminary Order of Forfeiture and an Amended Preliminary
Order of Forfeiture were entered on January 14, 2005 and August
3, 2005, respectively, ordering the defendants to forfeit the
(a) The sum of $354,729 seized on or about March 26, 2004, from
Account #0047-7457-0752 in the name of Texas Wholesale Dental
Supply, Inc. d/b/a National Dental Supply, Inc. at the Bank of
America, Dallas, Texas; and (b) all right, title and interest in $350,000.00 in United
Notice of the Amended Preliminary Order of Forfeiture was
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Middle
District of Pennsylvania on August 24, 2005, August 31, 2005 and
September 7, 2005. All persons claiming an interest in the
above-described property were required to file their claims with
the Clerk of Court not later than 30 days after the date of final
publication of notice.
No petitions were filed within the thirty-day period required
by 21 U.S.C. 853(n)(2). Therefore, any third-party interests are
barred by failure of those parties to file a timely petition.
Now, therefore, upon motion of the United States of America,
for Final Order of Forfeiture, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
1. All right, title and interest in the above-described
property is hereby condemned, forfeited and vested in the United
States of America, and shall be disposed of according to law; 2. The Clerk is hereby directed to send attested copies of this
Order to all counsel of record;
3. The Court will make the final order of forfeiture part of
the oral pronouncement of sentence for the defendants and record
that sentence in the final judgments. See United States v.
Bennett, 423 F.3d 271 (3rd Cir. 2005); and
4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction in the case for the
purpose of enforcing this Order.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.