3 property that her adult sons own, like specific guns or ammo.” D.E. No. 30. Terri Reese’s claimstated that “all property seized is either hers solely and separate, or by community property law,or by laws arising from the operation of a New Mexico Limited Liability Company.”
On March 23, 2012, the United States moved to stay the civil forfeiture case until thecriminal case was resolved through verdict or plea, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1).
D.E. No. 36. The Court granted the government’s motion to stay the civil forfeiture proceeding onJune 15, 2012.
D.E. No. 47.From July 17 through August 1, 2012, the Court conducted a jury trial in the related criminal matter. On August 1, 2012, in exchange for claimants Rick Reese and Terri Reeseagreeing to withdraw their request for a jury trial in the civil case, the United States agreed todismiss the criminal forfeiture allegations in the criminal case. The parties memorialized thisagreement on the record the afternoon of August 1, 2012. Later that day, the jury returned itsverdict as to all four criminal defendants. Claimants were each convicted of one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A).
11-CR-2294, D.E. No. 353. Following the verdicts, theCourt granted the three convicted defendants’ motion for a new trial.
D.E. No. 404. TheGovernment appealed.
D.E. No. 425.On September 4, 2012, the United States filed an unopposed motion to lift the order staying the civil forfeiture action. D.E. No. 48. On September 6, 2012, the Court entered anOrder lifting the stay. D.E. No. 49. On November 16, 2012, the Court entered an Order stayingdiscovery and all case management deadlines until the sentencing hearing in the related criminalcase. D.E. No. 60.
Case 1:11-cv-01109-RB-LFG Document 78 Filed 05/30/13 Page 3 of 10