United States v. $242,484.00

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that this Court may infer “from a district court’s explicit factual findings and conclusion implied factual findings that are consistent with its judgment although unstated”
• explaining that we do not read a “district court’s finding and the record from which they are drawn in a way that works against the judgment”
• stating that wrapping currency in cellophane-type material is a technique used by drug dealers (citing United States v. Currency, U.S. $42,500.00, 283 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2002))
• holding that it was appropriate for the district court to consider the claimant’s travel arrangements in light of evidence that “drug couriers often travel on tickets pur- chased with cash, . . . and frequently change their return date, as [claimant] did twice in two days.”
• “Wrapping cash in cellophane-type material is a technique known to be used by drug dealers to prevent discovery by drug-sniffing dogs.”
• “Wrapping cash in cellophane-type material is a technique known to be used by drug dealers to prevent discovery by drug-sniffing dogs.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).