text:
Aguiar, E., Ambrose, G. A., Chawla, N. V., Goodrich, V., & Brockman, J. (2014). Engagement vs Performance: Using Electronic Portfolios to Predict First Semester Engineering Student Retention. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1 (3) 7-33.
Nwanganga, Frederick, Aguiar, Everaldo, Ambrose, G. Alex, Goodrich, Victoria, Chawla, Nitesh. (2015) "Qualitatively Exploring Electronic Portfolios: A Text Mining Approach to Measuring Student Emotion as an Early Warning Indicator." Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge.
Ambrose, G. Alex, Martin, Holly, Page, Hugh (2014) “Linking Advising and ePortfolios for Engagement: Design, Evolution, Assessment, & University Wide Implementation” AAC&U Peer Review Winter 2014, Vol. 16.
Ambrose, G. Alex, & Williamson Ambrose, L. (2013). The Blended Advising Model: Transforming Advising with ePortfolios. International Journal of ePortfolio (IJeP), 3(1), 75-89.
Andrew, Megan and Robert M. Hauser. (December 2011). "Adoption? Evaluating the Formation of Educational Expectations." Social Forces.
Andrew, Megan and Erin Ruel, 2010. "Intergenerational Health Selection in Wealth: A First Look at Parents' Health Events and Inter Vivos Financial Transfers." Social Science Research 39(6): 1126-1136.
Andrew, Megan, 2010. "Retained and Re-Tracked: The Long-Term Effects of Primary Grade Retention and the Students Who Recover from Them." Center for Demography and Ecology Working Paper Series #2006-05. (Rev. February 2011).
Hon, A., Bloom, M., & Crant, M. 2014. Creative context, intrinsic motivation, and creative performance. Journal of Management, 40: 919-941.
Bloom, M. 2013. Are the poor happier? In D. G. Groody & G. Gutiérrez (eds.), The preferential option for the poor beyond theology: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 69-82), Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Lickenbrock, D.M., Braungart-Rieker, J.M., Ekas, N., Zentall, S., Oshio, T., & Planalp, E.M. (2013). Early Temperament and Attachment with Mothers and Fathers as Predictors of Toddler Compliance. Infant and Child Development, 22, 580-602.
Planalp, E.M., Braungart-Rieker, J.M., Lickenbrock, D.M., Zentall, S. (2013). Trajectories of Parenting During Infancy: The Role of Infant Temperament and Marital Adjustment for Mothers and Fathers. Infancy, 18(S1), E16-E45.
Braungart-Rieker, J.M., Hill, A.L., & Karrass, J. (2010). Fear and Anger Reactivity Trajectories From 4 to 16 Months: The Effects of Temperament, Regulation, and Maternal Sensitivity, Developmental Psychology, 46, 791-804.
Brinig, Margaret. From Contract to Covenant: Beyond the Law and Economics of the Family (Harvard University Press, 2000).
Brockman, Jay. Introduction to Engineering: Modeling and Problem Solving (John Wiley & Sons, 2009).
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Burish, P. (2000). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: An evidence-based practice to promote reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice.
Carbonaro, William. 2006. “Cross-National Differences in the Skills-Earnings Relationship: The Role of Skill Demands and Labor Market Institutions.” Social Forces 84:1819-1842.
Carbonaro, William. 2006. “Public-Private Differences in Achievement among Kindergarten Students: Differences in Learning Opportunities and Student Outcomes.” American Journal of Education 113:31-65.
Carbonaro, William. 2005. “Tracking, Student Effort, and Academic Achievement.” Sociology of Education 78:27-49.
Covay, Elizabeth, and Carbonaro, William. 2010. “Beyond School Walls: Participation in Extracurricular Activities, Classroom Behavior, and Academic Achievement” Sociology of Education 83:20-45.
Cheng, Y. (2009). When Cognitive Diagnosis Meets Computerized Adaptive Testing: CD-CAT. Psychometrika. DOI: 10.1007/S11336-009-9123-2.
Cheng, Y., & Keng, L. (2009). Computerized adaptive testing in criterion-referenced testing. In Smith, E. & Stone, G. (Eds.), Applications of Rasch Measurement in Criterion-Reference Testing: Practice Analysis to Score Reporting. JAM Press.
Cheng, Y., & Chang. H. (2009). The maximum priority index method for severely constrained item selection in computerized adaptive testing. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 369-383.
College Student Voices on Educational Reform: Challenging and Changing Conversations, Burke, Kevin, Collier, Brian, Maria McKenna. New York, NY: Palgrave 2013. (This is a collaborative publication with Notre Dame undergraduates and Notre Dame colleagues Maria McKenna and Kevin Burke).
Collier, Brian, and Lindsey Passenger Wieck. “Teaching the American West.” Journal of the West 49, no. 3 (Summer 2010): 8-9.
Collier, Brian. “'To Bring Honor to My Village': Steve Gachupin, the Community of Jemez Ceremony Running, and the Pikes Peak Marathon.” Journal of the West 46, no. 4 (Fall 2007): 62-71.
Collier, Brian. Review of Higher Education in the American West: Regional History and State Contexts. Higher Education & Society. Edited by Lester F. Goodchild, Richard W. Jonsen, Patty Limerick, and David A Longanecker. Western Historical Quarterly (2015).
Collier, Brian. "American Catholicism." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2013.
Collier, Brian. "The Battle for Socialism continues on into the 21st century." American History. ABC-CLIO. September 10, 2010.
Collier, Brian. ABC Clio Essay for High School Students on "Frontier History as False Nationalism." (2009) American History. ABC-CLIO. http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com.
Collier, Brian. Icons of Black America, “Harlem Globetrotters,” book chapter, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2010.
Collier, Brian. African American Icons of Sport: Triumph, Courage, and Excellence, “The Harlem Globetrotters,” book chapter Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008.
Cummings, E. M., Merrilees, C.E., Schermerhorn, A.C., Goeke-Morey, M.C., Shirlow, P., & Cairns, E. (2011). Longitudinal pathways between political violence and child adjustment: The role of emotional security about the community in Northern Ireland. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 213-224.
Merrilees, C.E., Cairns, E., Goeke-Morey, M.C., Schermerhorn, A.C., Shirlow, P., & Cummings, E. M. (2011). Associations between mothers’ experience with the Troubles in Northern Ireland and mothers’ and children’s psychological functioning: The moderating role of social identity. Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 60-75.
Cummings, E. M., Merrilees, C. M., Schermerhorn, A. C., Goeke-Morey, M. C., Shirlow, P., & Cairns, E. (2010a). Testing a social ecological model for relations between political violence and child adjustment in Northern Ireland. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 405-418.
Cummings, E. M., Schermerhorn, A. C., Merrilees, C. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Cairns, E. (2010b). Political violence and child adjustment in Northern Ireland: Testing pathways in a social ecological model including single- and two-parent families. Developmental Psychology, 46, 827-841.
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2010). Marital conflict and children: An emotional security perspective. New York and London: The Guilford Press.
Goeke-Morey, M.C., Cummings, E. M., Ellis, K., Merrilees, C.E., Schermerhorn, A.C., Shirlow, P., & Cairns, E. (2009). The differential impact on children of inter- and intra-community violence in Northern Ireland. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 15, 367-383.
Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M.C., Schermerhorn, A.C., Merrilees, C.E., & Cairns, E. (2009). Children and political violence from a social ecological perspective: Implications from research on children and families in Northern Ireland. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 12, 16-38.
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P.T. (2002). Effects of marital conflict on children: Recent advances and emerging themes in process-oriented research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 31-63.
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P.T. (1996). Emotional security as a regulatory process in normal development and the development of psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 123-139.
Davies, P.T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387-411.
D'Mello, S. K. & Graesser A. C. (2014). Confusion and its Dynamics during Device Comprehension with Breakdown Scenarios, Acta Psychologica, 151, 106-116. (IF = 2.37; 5Y IF =3.02).
D'Mello, S. K., & Mills, C. (2014). Emotions while Writing about Emotional and Non-emotional Topics, Motivation and Emotion, 38(1), 140-156.
D'Mello, S. K., Lehman, B. Pekrun, R., & Graesser, A. C. (2014). Confusion Can be Beneficial For Learning,Learning & Instruction, 29(1), 153-170.
Dallavis, C. M. (2011). "’Because that’s who I am’: Extending theories of culturally responsive pedagogy to consider religious identity, belief, and practice." Multicultural Perspectives.
Dallavis, C. M. (2011). “Qualified sociopolitical consciousness: Complicating culturally responsive pedagogy in faith-based schools.” Education and Urban Society.
Buehler, J. L., Gere, A. R., Dallavis, C. M., & Haviland, V. S. (2009). “Normalizing the fraughtness: How emotion, race, and school context complicate cultural competence.” Journal of Teacher Education 60(4), 408-418.
Dallavis, C. M. & Johnstone, J. V. (2009). “An evolving university-school partnership: The University of Notre Dame Magnificat Schools.” Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice 13(2), 224-247.
Gere, A. R., Buehler, J. L., Dallavis, C. M., & Haviland, V. S. (2009). “A Visibility Project: Learning to See the Raced Consciousness of Preservice Teachers.” American Educational Research Journal 46(3), 816-852.
Haviland, V. S., Gere, A. R., Buehler, J. L., & Dallavis, C. M. (2009). “Making the journey to cultural competence with poetry.” Multicultural Perspectives 11(1), 19-26.
Dallavis, C. M. (2009, April). “Culturally responsive pedagogy and urban Catholic schools: Promises and pitfalls.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Catholic Education Association, Anaheim.
Dallavis, C. M. (2009, April). “An unexplored intersection: Culturally responsive pedagogy, urban Catholic schools, and immigrant communities.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
Dallavis, C. M. (2008, November). “How can I implement CRP in my classroom?” Paper presented as part of symposium, “Demystifying culturally responsive pedagogy: Translating theory into classroom practice,” at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, San Antonio.
Watzke, J. L. & Dallavis, C. M. (2008, April). “Spiritual dimensions of culturally responsive pedagogy: Research on teacher and student perspectives.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York City.
DelFra, Louis. 5 Minutes with Wisdom: Spiritual Nourishment for Busy Teachers, to be published in May, 2016.
DelFra, Louis. 5 Minutes with the Saints: Spiritual Nourishment for Busy Teachers, editor and co-author, Ave Maria Press, 2014.
DelFra, Louis. The Eucharist as Sacrament of Love (video), executive producer, Pentavision, January, 2013.
DelFra, Louis. 5 Minutes with Christ: Spiritual Nourishment for Busy Teachers, editor and co-author, Ave Maria Press, August, 2011, currently in 3rd printing.
DelFra, Louis. A Teaching Mass (video), executive producer, script author, and co-narrator, Pentavision, January, 2011.
DelFra, Louis. “A Community of Educators” (with Sean McGraw and Timothy R. Scully) in Beyond Alternative Teacher Education: Integrating Teaching, Community, Spirituality, and Leadership, ed. John Watzke, Notre Dame, Alliance for Catholic Education Press, 2006.
DelFra, Louis. “Teaching Theology through Literature: A Justification and Proposed Curriculum for Teachers” in Catholic Education: A Journal in Inquiry and Practice, March, 2004, Volume 8, Number 3, pp. 346-374.
DelFra, Louis. “Come and You Will See: Spirituality in ACE” (with Timothy R. Scully) in Teaching Service and Alternative Teacher Education, ed. Michael Pressley, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002, pp. 184-214.
DelFra, Louis. “The Mystical Body of Christ: The Role of the Laity in the Catholic Church in the Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar,” 2002.
Diehl, J.J., & Paul, R. (2013). Acoustic and perceptual measurements of prosody production on the PEPS-C by children with autism. Applied Psycholinguistics.
Diehl, J.J., Schmitt, L., Crowell, C.R., & Villano, M. (2011). The use of social robots in therapy for children with autism spectrum disorders: A review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. Online First. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2011.05.006.
Diehl, J.J., & Paul, R. (2011). Acoustic differences in the imitation of prosodic patterns in children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. Online First. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2011.03.012.
Diehl, J.J., Wolf, J., Herlihy, L., & Moller, A.C. (2011). Seeing red: Are colors a window into implicit societal conceptions about the autism spectrum? Disability Studies Quarterly.
Diehl, J.J. & Berkovits, L. (2010). Is prosody a diagnostic and cognitive bellwether of autism spectrum disorders? In A. Harrison (Ed.) Speech Disorders: Causes, Treatments, and Social Effects (pp. 159-176). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Dowd, Robert. 2005. “Muslim Women and Civil Society in sub-Saharan Africa”, in the Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures, Volume 2, Suad Joseph (ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands:E.J. Brill Academic Publishers, pp. 47-49.
Duffy, John. Writing from These Roots: The Historical Development of Literacy in a Hmong-American Community. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2007.
Nystrand, M. and Duffy, J., eds. Towards a Rhetoric of Everyday Life: New Directions in Research on Writing, Text, and Discourse. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2002.
Duffy, John. “Letters from The Fair City: A Rhetorical Conception of Literacy.” College Composition and Communication, 56:2. 2004, 223-50.
Frabutt, J. M. (2013). Beyond academics: Supporting the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of students in Catholic schools. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Nuzzi, R. J., Holter, A. C., & Frabutt, J. M. (2013). Striving for balance, steadfast in faith: The Notre Dame study of U.S. Catholic elementary school principals. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Nuzzi, R. J., Frabutt, J. M., & Holter, A. C. (2012). Building assets: The strategic use of closed Catholic schools. Notre Dame, IN: Alliance for Catholic Education.
Holter, A. C., & Frabutt, J. M. (2011). Action research in Catholic schools: A step-by-step guide for practitioners (2nd edition). Notre Dame, IN: Alliance for Catholic Education Press.
MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Lindsey, E. W., Frabutt, J. M., & Chambers, J. C. (2014). Mother-adolescent conflict in African American and European American families: The role of corporal punishment, adolescent aggression, and adolescents' hostile attributions of mothers’ intent. Journal of Adolescence, 37(6), 851–861.
Frabutt, J. M., Holter, A. C., & Nuzzi, R. J. (2013). What are they saying about Catholic schools? A systematic review of the discourse on preK-12 Catholic education, 2005-2010. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 22(1), 75-96.
Hefner, M. K., Frabutt, J. M., Harvey, L. K., Di Luca, K. L., & Shelton, T. L. (2013). Resident perceptions of an overt drug elimination strategy. Journal of Applied Social Science, 7(1), 61-78.
Harvey, L. K., Di Luca, K. L., Hefner, M. K., Frabutt, J. M., & Shelton, T. L. (2013). Systematic observations of neighborhood order: Assessing the methodology in evaluating a community-based initiative. Journal of Applied Social Science, 7(1), 42-60.
Frabutt, J. M., & Speach, G. (2012). Principals’ perspectives on school mental health and wellness in U.S. Catholic elementary schools. School Mental Health: A Multidisciplinary Research and Practice Journal, 4(3), 155-169.
Garnett, Richard. Briefly Noted, First Things (March 2008) (reviewing Philip Bess, Till We Have Built Jerusalem: Architecture, Urbanism, and the Sacred (2006)).
Garnett, Richard. Briefly Noted, First Things (Oct. 2007) (reviewing Patrick M. Garry, Wrestling with God: The Courts’ Tortuous Treatment of Religion (2007)).
Garnett, Richard. A Matter of Opinion: Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.,Liberty (Nov./Dec. 2007).
Garnett, Richard. Religion and Group Rights: Are Churches (Just) Like the Boy Scouts?, 22 St. John’s J. Leg. Comment. 515 (2007).
Garnett, Richard. Pluralism, Dialogue, and Freedom: Professor Robert Rodes and the Church-State Nexus, 22 J. L. & RELIGION 503 (2007).
Groody, Daniel G., Globalization, Spirituality, and Justice: Navigating the Path to Peace. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2007, 280 pages. Translated into Spanish as Globalización, Espiritualidad y Justicia: Navegando por la Ruta a la Paz. Madrid: Verbo Divino, 2009, 441 pages.
Groody, Daniel G., Border of Death, Valley of Life: An Immigrant Journey of Heart and Spirit. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Press, 2002, 188 pages. Translated into Spanish as Frontera de Muerte, Valle de Vida: Un Caminar del Inmigrante Mexicano. Mexico City: Editorial San Pablo, 2005, 192 pages.
Howard, G. S. (2006). Stanford Ovshinsky and the hydrogen economy: Creating a better world. Notre Dame, IN: Academic Publications.
Howard, G. S., (Ed.) (2004). For the love of teaching. Notre Dame, IN: Academic Publications.
Jensen, Richard. "Product Differentiation and Public Education", Journal of Public Economic Theory, 69-93, January, 2001 (with W. Hoyt).
Cosner, S., & Jones, M. F. (2016). Leading school-wide improvement in low-performing schools facing conditions of accountability: Key actions and considerations. Journal of Educational Administration.
Kloser, M. and Wilsey, M. (2015). No blue ribbon: Reforming science fairs in middle and high school science education, The Science Teacher, 82(8).
Kloser, M. J. and Brownell, S. E. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology. Studies in Higher Education, 1 – 20.
Kloser, M. (2014). Identifying a core set of science teaching practices: A Delphi expert panel approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1185 – 1217.
Kloser, M. & Bofferding, L. (2014). Middle and high school students’ conceptions of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Environmental Education Research.
Brownell, S., Kloser, M., Fukami, T., Shavelson, R. (2013). Context matters: Volunteer bias, small sample size, and the value of comparison groups in the assessment of research-based undergraduate introductory biology lab courses. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 14(2), 176 – 182.
Kloser, M. (2013). Exploring high school biology students’ engagement with more and less epistemologically considerate texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1232 – 1257.
Kloser, M., Brownell, S., Fukami, T., Shavelson, R. (2013). Effects of a research-based ecology lab course: A study of non-volunteer achievement, self-confidence, and perception of lab course purpose. Journal of College Science Teaching.
Martinez, J.F., Borko, H., Stecher, B., Luskin, R., Kloser, M. (2012). Measuring quality assessment in science classrooms through artifacts and self-report. Educational Assessment.
Brown, B.; Henderson, B.; and Kloser, M. (2012). Bridging cultures: The role of culturally relevant pedagogy, discursive identity, and conceptual continuities in the promotion of scientific literacy. In Moore, J. L. III and Lewis, C.W. (Eds.) Urban School Contexts for African American Students: Crisis and prospects for improvement. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
Kloser, M. (2012). A place for the nature of biology in biology education. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 1-21.
Kloser, M. (2011). The impact of traditional textbook and epistemologically transparent accounts on high school biology students' interest, comprehension, and epistemology. (Doctoral dissertation).
Narvaez, D. & Lapsley, D.K. (Eds., 2009). Moral self, motivation and identity: Prospects for new field of study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Power, F.C., Narvaez, D., Nuzzi,, R., Lapsley, D.K. & Hunt, T. (Eds., 2008) Moral education: A handbook.. Greenwood Publishing.
Lapsley, D.K. & Power, F.C. (Eds., 2005). Character psychology and character education. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Lapsley, D.K. & Narvaez, D. (Eds., 2004). Moral development, self and identity. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Lapsley, D.K. (2007) Moral self-identity as the aim of education. In L. Nucci & D.Narvaez (Eds). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lapsley, D.K. & Narvaez, D. (2006). Character education. In Vol. 4 (A. Renninger & I. Siegel, volume eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (W. Damon & R. Lerner, Series Eds.) (pp. 248-296). New York: Wiley.
Maxwell, S. E., Howard, G. S., & Lau, M. Y. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean? American Psychologist.
Anderson, S. F., & Maxwell, S. E. (2015). There’s more than one way to conduct a replication study: Beyond statistical significance. Psychological Methods.
Wang, L., & Maxwell, S. E. (2015). On disaggregating between-person and within-person effects with longitudinal data using multilevel models. Psychological Methods, 20, 63-83.
Yang, M., Wang, L., & Maxwell, S. E. (2015). Bias in longitudinal data analysis with missing data using typical linear mixed-effects modeling and pattern-mixture approach: An analytical illustration. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 68, 246-267.
Yang, M., & Maxwell, S. E. (2014). Treatment effects in randomized longitudinal trials with different types of non-ignorable dropout. Psychological Methods, 19, 188-210.
Russell, A., Haeffel, G. J., Hankin, B. L., Maxwell, S. E., & Perera, R. A. (2014). Moving beyond main effects: A data analytic strategy for testing complex theories of clinical phenomena. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 21, 385-397.
Yuan, K.-H., Cheng, Y., & Maxwell, S. E. (2014). Moderation analysis using a two-level regression model. Psychometrika, 79, 701-732.
Mitchell, M. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2013). A comparison of the cross-sectional and sequential designs when assessing longitudinal mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48, 301-339.
Maxwell, S. E., Cole, D. A, & Mitchell, M. A. (2011). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation: Partial and complete mediation under an autoregressive model. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 816-841.
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2009). Statistical methods for risk-outcome research: Being sensitive to longitudinal structure. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 71-96.
Mayotte, G. (2010). Let your light shine: A guide for preparing to teach in a Catholic school, Notre Dame, IN: ACE Press.
Mayotte, G. (2010). Faculty prayer in Catholic schools: A Survey of Practices and meaning. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice. 13(3): pp. 329-349.
Mayotte, G. (2010). Fostering the prayer life of the Catholic school faculty. Today’s Catholic Teacher. April: pp. 49-52.
Mayotte, G. (2007). Prayers to Guide Teaching. Notre Dame, IN: ACE Press.
Mayotte, G. (2003). Steppingstones to success: Previously developed career competencies and their benefits to career switchers transitioning to teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education. 19(7): 681 – 695.
Mayotte, G. (2003). Know why, know how, know whom: Steppingstones to success for second career teachers. In Scherer, M. (Ed.). Keeping Good Teachers. ASCD Publications, 141-148.
Albert, L. Mayotte, G. and Cutler-Sohn, S. (2002). Making observation interactive. Teaching Mathematics in the Middle Grades, 7(7): 396-401.
McGraw, Sean D. “Managing Change: Party Competition in the New Ireland,” Irish Political Studies, Volume 23, Number 4, December 2008.
Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2015). Easy as ABCABC: Abstract language facilitates performance on a concrete patterning task. Child Development, 3, 927-935.
McNeil, N. M., Chesney, D. L., Matthews, P. G., Fyfe, E. R., Petersen, L. A., & Dunwiddie, A. E. (2012). It pays to be organized: Organizing addition knowledge around equivalent values facilitates understanding of math equivalence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1109-1121.
McNeil, N. M., Rittle-Johnson, B., Hattikudur, S., & Petersen, L. A. (2010). Continuity in representation between children and adults: Arithmetic knowledge hinders undergraduates’ algebraic problem solving. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11, 437-457.
McNeil, N. M. (2008). Limitations to teaching children 2 + 2 = 4: Typical arithmetic problems can hinder learning of mathematical equivalence. Child Development, 79, 1524-1537.
McNeil, N. M. (2007). U-shaped development in math: Seven year olds outperform nine year olds on mathematical equivalence problems. Developmental Psychology, 43, 687-695.
Knuth, E. J., Stephens, A. C., McNeil, N. M. & Alibali, M .W. (2006). Does understanding the equal sign matter? Evidence from solving equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 297-312.
McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2005). Why won’t you change your mind? Knowledge of operational patterns hinders learning and performance on equations. Child Development, 76, 883-899.
Narvaez, D., Valentino, K., Fuentes, A., McKenna, J., & Gray, P. (Eds.) (2014). Ancestral Landscapes in Human Evolution: Culture, Childrearing and Social Wellbeing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Nucci, L., Narvaez, D., & Krettenauer, T. (Eds.) (2014). Handbook of Moral and Character Education (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lapsley, D., Holter, A., & Narvaez, D. (2013). Teaching for Character: Three Strategies for Teacher Education. In M. Sanger & R. Osgulthorpe (Eds.), The Moral Work of Teaching: Preparing and Supporting Practitioners. New York: Teachers College Press.
Narvaez, D. (2010). Moral complexity: The fatal attraction of truthiness and the importance of mature moral functioning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(2), 163-181.
Narvaez, D. (2010). The emotional foundations of high moral intelligence. In B. Latzko & T. Malti (Eds.).Children’s Moral Emotions and Moral Cognition: Developmental and Educational Perspectives, New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 129, 77-94. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Narvaez, D. (2007). How cognitive and neurobiological sciences inform values education for creatures like us. In D. Aspin & J. Chapman (Eds.), Values Education and Lifelong Learning: Philosophy, Policy, Practices (pp. 127-159). Springer Press International.
Lapsley, D. K. & Narvaez, D. (2006). Character education. In Vol. 4 (A. Renninger & I. Siegel, volume Eds.),Handbook of Child Psychology (W. Damon & R. Lerner, Series Eds.) (pp. 248-296). New York: Wiley.
Nuzzi, R. Chapter on Catholic schools in the United States, in Global Perspectives on Catholic Religious Education in Schools. (Eds. Buchanan & Gellel). Springer, 2015 (forthcoming).
Nuzzi, R. “Catholic Identity,” in Catholic Schools Still Make A Difference, Washington, DC: National Catholic Educational Association, 2002.
Nuzzi, R. “Documents on Catholic Education,” in Handbook of Research on Catholic Education. (Eds. Thomas Hunt, Ellis Joseph, & Ronald Nuzzi). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001.
Nuzzi, R. “Spirituality & The Teaching of Religion,” in Handbook of Research on Catholic Education. (Eds. Thomas Hunt, Ellis Joseph, & Ronald Nuzzi). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001.
Nuzzi, R. Gifts of the Spirit: Multiple Intelligences in Religious Education. Washington, DC: National Catholic Educational Association, 1999. ISBN 1-55833–236-7. Second edition.
O’Hara, Patricia. Churning Claims Under Federal Securities Law, in Contemporary Issues in Securities Regulation 325 (M. Steinberg ed., Butterworth Legal Publishers 1988).
O’Hara, Patricia. Legal Aspects of Insider Trading, in Ethics and the Investment Industry 101 (John Houck and Rev. Oliver F. Williams, C.S.C., eds., Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Religious Values in Business and University Press of America 1989).
O’Hara, Patricia. The Elusive Concept of Control in Churning Claims Under Federal Securities and Commodities Law, 75 Georgetown Law Journal 1875 (1987); reprinted in 21 Securities Law Review 281 (1989).
O’Hara, Patricia. Erosion of the Privity Requirement in Section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933: The Expanded Meaning of Seller, 31 UCLA Law Review 921 (1984); cited in Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 648 n. 24 (1988).
Schoenig, J. A Ghoulish Inconsistency: A Comment on Tim Keller’s “The National Implications of Cain v. Horne”, 4 Journal of School Choice 3, (2010).
Schoenig, J. “Affecting Design Change in the Preparation of Teachers: Best Practices in Alternative Teacher Education,” in Beyond Alternative Teacher Education: The Impact of Classroom Experience (2007).
Sikkink, David. 2012. “Academic and Social Effects of Protestant and Catholic Schools.” In James C. Carper and Tom Cook (eds.), Praeger Handbook of Faith-Based Schooling in the United States (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers).
Michael Emerson, Sikkink, David, and Adele James. 2010. “The Panel Study of American Religion and Ethnicity: Background, Methods, and Selected Findings.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 49:162-171.
Sikkink, David. 2010. “Do Religious School Teachers Take Their Faith to Work? Research Evidence from the United States.” Theo-Web. Zeitschrift für Religionspädagogik 9 (1): 160-179.
Sikkink, David. 2009. “Conservative Protestants, Schooling, and Democracy.” In Stephen Brint and Jean Schroedel (eds.), The Christian Conservative Movement and American Democracy. Russell Sage Foundation Press.
Sikkink, David. 2009. “Religion and Academic Achievement.” Pp. 375-9 in James C. Carper and Tom Cook (eds.), The Praeger Handbook of Religion and Education in the United States. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.
Michael Welch, Sikkink, David, and Matthew Loveland. 2008. “The Radius of Trust: Religion, Social Embeddedness, and Trust in Strangers.” Social Forces 86(1):23-48.
Kraig Beyerlein and Sikkink, David. 2008. “Sorrow and Solidarity: Why Americans Volunteered for 9/11 Relief Efforts.” Social Problems 55(2): 190-215.
Jennifer Glanville, Sikkink, David, and Edwin Hernandez. 2008. “Religious Involvement and Educational Outcomes: The Role of Social Capital and Extracurricular Participation.” The Sociological Quarterly 49(1): 105-137.
Sikkink, David and Michael Emerson. 2008. “School Choice and Racial Residential Segregation in U.S. Schools: The Role of Parent Education.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 31(2): 267-93.
Rory McVeigh and Sikkink, David. 2005. “Organized Racism and the Stranger.” Sociological Forum. 2(4): 497-522.
Sikkink, David and Jonathan Hill. 2005. “Education.” In Helen Rose Ebaugh (ed.), Handbook on Religion and Social Institutions (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers), pp. 41-66.
Rory McVeigh, Daniel J. Myers, and Sikkink, David. 2004. “Corn, Klansmen, and Coolidge: Structure and Framing in Social Movements.” Social Forces 83(2): 653-690.
Sikkink, David. 2004. “The Hidden Civic Lessons of Public and Private Schools.”. Journal of Catholic Education7(3): 339-365.
Albert J. Meyer and Sikkink, David. 2004. “What Does It Profit a College to Add More Students? The Relationship between Enrollment Growth and Financial Strength.” Christian Higher Education 3(2): 97-113.
Christian Smith and Sikkink, David. 2003. "Social Predictors of Retention In and Switching From the Religious Faith of Family of Origin: Another Look Using Religious Tradition Self-Identification." Review of Religious Research 45(2): 188-206.
Sikkink, David. 2003. “The Loyal Opposition: Evangelicals, Civic Engagement, and Schooling for Children.” In Michael Cromartie (ed.), A Public Faith: Evangelicals and Civic Engagement. Rowman and Littlefield.
Rory McVeigh and Sikkink, David. 2001. “God, Politics, and Protest: Religious Beliefs and the Legitimation of Contentious Tactics.” Social Forces 79(4): 1425-58.
Sikkink, David and Andrea Mihut. 2000. “Religion and the Politics of Multiculturalism." Religion and Education27(2):30-46.
Sikkink, David and Christian Smith. 2000. “Evangelicals on Education.” In Christian Smith, Christian America?Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 129-159.
Sikkink, David. 1999. “The Social Sources of Alienation from Public Schools.” Social Forces 78(1):51-86.
Staud, John J. What's in a Name? The Pequod and Melville's Heretical Politics. ESQ: A Journal of the American Renaissance, 39 (4) (1992). Awarded the "Merton J. Sealts Jr. Prize" for best essay of the year.
Svarovsky, G. N. (2014). Engineering learning in museums and other designed settings: Towards a theoretical framework. In Strobel, J., Purzer, S. & Cardella, M. (Eds.) Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Research into Practice. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Cardella, M., Svarovsky, G. N., Dorie, B. (2013). Gender research on adult-child interactions in informal engineering environments (GRADIENT): Early findings. Proceedings of the 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, June 2013, Atlanta, GA.
Svarovsky, G. N. (2011). Exploring complex engineering learning over time with Epistemic Network Analysis. Journal of Pre-college Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 19-30.
Svarovsky, G. N. (2010). Exploring and Assessing Engineering Epistemic Frames in Authentic Engineering Learning Environments for Girls. Paper presented at the International Conference of Learning Sciences Engineering Workshop, June 2010, Chicago, IL.
Shaffer, D.W., Hatfield, D., Svarovsky, G. N., Nash, P., Nulty, A., Bagley, E., Franke, K., Rupp, A.A., Mislevy, R. (2009). Epistemic Network Analysis: A prototype for 21st Century assessment of learning. The International Journal of Learning and Media.
Svarovsky, G. N., & Shaffer, D. W. (2007). SodaConstructing knowledge through exploratoids. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 133-153.
Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2008). How does Motivation Develop and Why does it Change? Reframing Motivation Research. Educational Psychologist, 43, 1-13.
Turner, J. C. & Meyer, D. K. (2009). Understanding Motivation in Mathematics: What is Happening at School? In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.)., Handbook of Motivation at School. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perry, N., Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D.K. (2006). Student Engagement in the classroom. In P. Alexander and P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp.327-348). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., & Patrick, H. (2003). Teacher Discourse and students’ affect and achievement-related behaviors in two high mastery /high performance classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 103, 357-382.
Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. A., Kang, J. & Patrick, H. (2002). The Classroom Environment and Students’ Reports of Avoidance Strategies in Mathematics: A Multi-Method Study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88-106.
Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the instructional contexts of classrooms: Using our past to forge our future. Educational Psychologist, 35, 69-85.
Turner, J. C., Thorpe, P. K., & Meyer, D.K. (1998). Students’ reports of motivation and negative affect: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 758-771.
Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Cox, K. E., Logan, C., DiCintio, M., & Thomas, C. (1998). Creating Contexts for Involvement in Mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 730-745.
Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 410-441.
Valentino, K., Hibel, L.C., Cummings, E. M., Comas, M., Nuttall, A.K., & McDonnell, C. (2015). Maternal elaborative reminiscing mediates the effect of child maltreatment on behavioral and physiological functioning. Development & Psychopathology.
Valentino, K., Toth, S.L., & Cicchetti, D. (2009). Autobiographical memory functioning among abused, neglected, and nonmaltreated children: The overgeneral memory effect. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(8), 1029-1038.
Xiaobang Hu, Whaley, Michelle A., Michelle M. Stein, Bronwen E. Mitchell, and Joseph E. O’Tousa. Coexpression of spectrally distinct rhodopsins in Aedes aegypti R7 photoreceptors. Accepted PLoS ONE, Volume 6, Issue 8, August, 2011.
Xiaobang Hu, Matthew Leming, Alexander Metoxen, Whaley, Michelle A., and Joseph E. O’Tousa. Light-mediated control of rhodopsin movement in mosquito photoreceptors. Accepted, Journal of Neurosciences, June, 2012.
Certo, J.L., Apol, L., Wibbens, E., & Hawkins, L. (2012). Living the Poet's Life: Using an Aesthetic Approach to Poetry to Enhance Preservice Teachers' Poetry Experiences and Dispositions. English Education.
Stanulis, R.N., Little, S., & Wibbens, E. (2012). Intensive mentoring that contributes to change in beginning teachers instructional practices in literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education.
Stanulis R.,N., Brondyk, S.K., Little, S., & Wibbens, E. (2014). Mentoring beginning teachers to enact discussion-based teaching. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning.
J. Kevin Corder and Wolbrecht, Christina. 2016. Counting Women's Ballots: Female Voters from Suffrage through the New Deal. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wolbrecht, Christina and Michael Hartney. 2014. ""Ideas about Interests': Explaining the Partisan Politics of Education." Perspectives on Politics 12(September): 603-30.
John Griffin, Brian Newman, and Wolbrecht, Christina.. 2012. "A Gender Gap in Policy Representation in the U.S. Congress?" Legislative Studies Quarterly 37(February): 35-66.
Wolbrecht, Christina and David E. Campbell. 2007. “Leading by Example: Female Members of Parliament as Political Role Models.” American Journal of Political Science 51(October): 921-39.
David E. Campbell and Wolbrecht, Christina. 2006. “See Jane Run: Women Politicians as Role Models for Adolescents.” Journal of Politics 68(May): 233-47.
Wolbrecht, Christina. 2000. The Politics of Women’s Rights: Parties, Positions, and Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wyttenbach, Melodie. Dissertation: The Educational Experience of DACAmented Students: Leveraging Relationships to Confront Barriers and Navigate the American Educational Experience. (2015).

matches: V. V. V. V. v. v. v.


Before TJOFLAT and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and VINING*, District Judge.
This appeal requires us to determine whether the statute of limitations had expired before the government brought a civil in rem forfeiture action on properties procured with proceeds from drug transactions. The district judge decided that the government should have known earlier that the properties, titled in the names of the drug offender's ex-wife and son, were purchased with drug money and dismissed the case with prejudice. We REVERSE and REMAND.
Since the 1980's, the government had been investigating Homer Lynell Carrell, father of claimant-appellee Scottie Lynell Carrell, for drug trafficking. In 1985, Homer Carrell purchased one of the parcels at issue in this case from Lonnie Green for $10,000 in cash. Because he was about to commence a prison sentence for drug trafficking, Homer Carrell told Green not to execute a deed to him. Consequently, this property remained in Green's name until 1990, when Homer Carrell instructed Green to execute and deliver the deed to his ex-wife, Elsie Keith,1 and his son, Scottie Carrell.
Homer Carrell purchased the second parcel of land from Jimmy Robinson in exchange for sixteen used automobiles. Title was placed in the names of Elsie Keith and Scottie. Both deeds were recorded properly in the Jackson County, Alabama, land records in August, 1990. After an indictment alleging that, in July, 1992, Homer Carrell had intimidated a federal witness who was providing information regarding the investigation of his drug trafficking activities to a federal grand jury, was returned on September 7, 1992, Carrell fled the jurisdiction. He remained a fugitive until his arrest in Tennessee in March, 1998.
On May 3, 1993, the government seized a 147-acre farm in Jackson County that Homer Carrell had inherited from his mother. The government alleged in its complaint that the farm was subject to forfeiture on the same grounds as those in this complaint.2 The two properties at issue in this case were transferred to Scottie Carrell by February 2, 1995 deeds that were duly recorded in the Jackson County land records.
The government filed an in rem civil forfeiture action against the two defendant parcels on December 23, 1996. On motion of Scottie Carrell, the sole claimant, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice based upon our former panel decision in United States v. 408 Peyton Road, S.W., 112 F.3d 1106 (11th Cir. 1997), vacated, 133 F.3d 1378 (11th Cir.), aff'd on reh'g, 162 F.3d 644 (11th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1089, 119 S.Ct. 1500 (1999).3 Scottie also raised the issue that the statute of limitations had expired, but that issue was not addressed given the disposition of the case.
On March 19, 1998, fugitive Homer Carrell was arrested in Tennessee. The government filed this civil forfeiture action against the defendant real properties under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) on 16 April 1998. In its complaint, the government alleged that Homer Carrell, a known drug dealer and fugitive from justice, purchased the first defendant parcel in 1985 and the second defendant parcel in 1990 with proceeds from his unlawful cocaine and marijuana trafficking. The complaint further stated that Homer Carrell placed title for each property in the names of his ex-wife and son for concealment, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956, which subjected the properties to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). On the government's motion, a magistrate judge entered a warrant for the arrest of the defendant properties on May 4, 1998. This warrant directed the United States Marshal for the Northern District of Alabama to post the warrant of arrest on the defendant properties and to give appropriate notice to all potential claimants. Special agents of the United States Customs Service executed the warrant of arrest by posting a copy on the defendant real properties, and they executed service of notice and the complaint on all interested parties.
As in the first forfeiture proceeding, Scottie Carrell, as sole claimant, denied any knowledge of drug activity being connected with the properties. He again alleged that the properties were seized unlawfully by the government and that the forfeiture action was barred by the applicable five-year statute of limitations in 19 U.S.C. § 1621. He further moved to dismiss the government's forfeiture complaint with prejudice.
Following the government's response, the magistrate judge conducted a hearing on the motion to dismiss. The hearing included testimony from Elsie Keith and Scottie. Thereafter, the magistrate judge entered his report and recommendation, in which he determined that the forfeiture action was barred by the five-year statute of limitations. He concluded that the two parcels were not concealed because the respective deeds were on public record in 1990. Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended that the forfeiture action against the defendant real properties be dismissed with prejudice.
The government objected to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation on two bases. First, the government argued that the five-year limitations period under § 1621 did not begin to run until the government's discovery of the involvement of the defendant properties with Homer Carrell's drug crimes and that the discovery was revealed by an investigation that occurred in April, 1996. Second, the government contended that it was required to possess probable cause that Homer Carrell was linked to the two defendant properties before it could be said to have discovered the crime, which did not occur until the 1996 investigation. It is the government's position that the time when the defendant properties were titled in names other than Homer Carrell constituted concealment, which must be excluded in calculating the limitations period under § 1621.
In a memorandum opinion, the district judge stated that "the relevant issue is when the Government 'knew or should have known of the alleged offense and the availability of forfeiture.'" R1-19-3. The judge determined that the government, by searching the county property title records, "could have discovered the situation through an investigation of the real property holdings of Carrell's son and ex-wife." Id. at 6. Consequently, the district judge adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the government's forfeiture action with prejudice. This appeal followed.
In an appeal from an in rem civil forfeiture pursuant to § 881(a)(6), we review the district judge's factual findings for clear error, and plenary review is the standard for the conclusions of law. United States v. 15603 85th Ave. N., 933 F.2d 976, 979 (11th Cir. 1991). "In this circuit, the existence of probable cause to support a forfeiture is a matter of law, and thus subject to plenary review on appeal." United States v. Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-five Thousand, 762 F.2d 895, 903 n.17 (11th Cir. 1985). Since it is a question of law, we review a district judge's interpretation and application of a statute of limitations de novo. Harrison v. Digital Health Plans, 183 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
In statutory construction, "the plain meaning of the statute controls unless the language is ambiguous or leads to absurd results." United States v. McLymont, 45 F.3d 400, 401 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Nevertheless, "this plain-meaning rule should not be applied to produce a result which is actually inconsistent with the policies underlying the statute." Bailey v. USX Corp., 850 F.2d 1506, 1509 (11th Cir. 1988). "A rule of law that is the product of judicial interpretation of a vague, ambiguous, or incomplete statutory provision is no less binding than a rule that is based on the plain meaning of a statute." Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 493 U.S. 103, 112, 110 S.Ct. 444, 451 (1989); see Rickard v. Auto Publisher, Inc., 735 F.2d 450, 455 (11th Cir. 1984) ("One reliable indicium of the clarity of Congress' language is consistent judicial interpretation of the provision in question.").
19 U.S.C. §§ 1621 & (2); see United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 63, 114 S.Ct. 492, 505-06 (1993) (recognizing that § 1621 of the customs laws is the applicable statute of limitations for a civil forfeiture proceeding). Thus, the plain language of the statute states that the limitations period begins to run upon discovery of the "alleged offense." Id. While "offender" in statutory language generally refers to a human actor, which would implicate in personam theories of limitation, the Supreme Court has clarified that, in civil in rem forfeiture cases, the property is defined as the "offender," which "has a venerable history in our case law."5 Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 615, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 2808 (1993); see United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 363, 104 S.Ct. 1099, 1105 (1984) ("In contrast to the in personam nature of criminal actions, actions in rem have traditionally been viewed as civil proceedings, with jurisdiction dependent upon seizure of a physical object."). In addressing the civil forfeiture statutes at issue in this case, § 881(a)(6) and § 981(a)(1)(A), as well as the § 1621 statute of limitations, the Supreme Court explained: "Because forfeiture proceedings under the customs laws are in rem, it is clear that Congress intended that a forfeiture under § 881 . . . would be a proceeding in rem. Congress specifically structured these forfeitures to be impersonal by targeting the property itself." United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 288-89, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 2147 (1996) (citation omitted).
In 1978, Congress amended the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 to provide for civil forfeiture of "[a]ll moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance [and] all proceeds traceable to such an exchange." 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) (emphasis added)6; see United States v. Daccarett, 6 F.3d 37, 46 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Now 'one of the most potent weapons in the judicial armamentarium,' civil forfeiture has become a favored method for imposing significant economic sanctions against narcotics traffickers." (citation omitted)). Apart from the former forfeiture of property actually involved in unlawful drug transactions, the Supreme Court noted that "to authorize the seizure and forfeiture of proceeds of illegal drug transactions . . . marked an important expansion of governmental power." United States v. 92 Buena Vista Ave., 507 U.S. 111, 121, 113 S.Ct. 1126, 1133 (1993) (citation omitted); see Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 563, 113 S.Ct. 2766, 2778 (1993) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) ("Civil in rem forfeiture is limited in application to contraband and articles put to unlawful use, or in its broadest reach, to proceeds traceable to unlawful activity."); Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-five Thousand, 762 F.2d at 905 ("The statute authorizes the forfeiture of 'all proceeds traceable to [a narcotics] exchange,' 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), and does not limit forfeiture to property found in the hands of a drug dealer." (alteration in original)).
The statute [§ 881(a)(6)] covers any asset exchanged directly for narcotics, such as a bar of gold or a car. Congress has also made it clear that "traceable proceeds" includes an asset indirectly exchanged for narcotics in one or more "intervening legitimate transactions, or otherwise changed in form . . . ." See Joint Explanatory Statement of Titles II and III, Psychotropic Substances Act of 1978, Pub.L.No. 95-633, reprinted in 1978 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 9518, 9522 ("Explanatory Statement"). If the seller of drugs uses the cash he receives to buy a bar of gold or a car, that asset is "traceable proceeds," and so is a credit at a bank.
Congress wished to reach proceeds of drug transactions exchanged through a series of "intervening" transactions and "changed in form."
United States v. Banco Cafetero Panama, 797 F.2d 1154, 1158, 1161 (2d Cir. 1986).
In civil forfeiture actions under § 881(a)(6), the government must demonstrate only "'probable cause for belief that a substantial connection exists between the property to be forfeited and the criminal activity defined by the statute,'" or "the exchange of a controlled substance."7 Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-five Thousand, 762 F.2d at 903. "Under Section 881(a)(6), the government is not required to show that property is owned by a drug trafficker, but rather that it has a substantial connection to a drug transaction," even if the property belongs to third parties. United States v. 900 Rio Vista Blvd., 803 F.2d 625, 629 (11th Cir. 1986). Our circuit has defined probable cause in a civil forfeiture case as "'reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof, but more than mere suspicion .'" Id. at 628 (citation omitted). We also have held that "circumstantial evidence can suffice to support a finding of probable cause" and recognized that "nothing in the statute requires evidence of a particular narcotics transaction."8 Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-five Thousand, 762 F.2d at 904; see 900 Rio Vista Blvd., 803 F.2d at 629 n.3 ("Section 881(a)(6) only requires that the government show probable cause that there is a substantial connection between the property and illegal drug transactions; it does not require a showing of a relationship between the property and a particular drug transaction."). In evaluating the evidence of proceeds traceable to drug transactions, we have eschewed "'clinical detachment'" and endorsed "a common sense view to the realities of normal life" applied to the "totality of the circumstances." Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-five Thousand, 762 F.2d at 903, 904 (citation omitted). Additionally, "hearsay testimony may be used to establish probable cause." 900 Rio Vista Blvd., 803 F.2d at 629 n.2.
After the government has shown probable cause, the burden of proof shifts to the claimant "to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the [drug proceeds] had not been used in violation of the statute." Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-five Thousand, 762 F.2d at 904; see Daccarett, 6 F.3d at 57 (recognizing that "the claimant's burden is heavier than the government's . . . . [because] 'by a preponderance of the evidence' [is] a more stringent standard"). "This burden is met either by rebutting the government's evidence that the property was purchased with proceeds of illegal drug activities or a showing that the claimant is an 'innocent owner' who did not know of the property's connection with drug sales." 15603 85th Ave. N., 933 F.2d at 979. To have standing to contest a § 881(a)(6) forfeiture, a claimant must have "'an ownership or possessory interest in the property seized.'" Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-five Thousand, 762 F.2d at 907 (citation omitted). Consequently, "the critical issue in a forfeiture case" for judicial determination is whether the government's showing of probable cause, if unrebutted by a claimant, "is sufficient to permit forfeiture." Two Parcels of Real Property, 92 F.3d at 1126.
In this case, the government demonstrated probable cause that the first property titled in Scottie Carrell's name was purchased with the proceeds of Homer Carrell's marijuana and cocaine sales because he had no other legitimate source of income. Regarding the second property, the government's investigation revealed that the sixteen cars that belonged to Homer Carrell's mother that were exchanged for the property were purchased with Homer Carrell's drug proceeds. Scottie has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this evidence was not correct. "Evidence that claimants are generally engaged in the drug business over a period of time, have no visible source of substantial income, use cash for large purchases, and are nominee owners is all probative evidence of probable cause, as is a history of drug violations."9 Two Parcels of Real Property, 92 F.3d at 1128 (citations omitted). There is ample evidence of a substantial connection between Homer Carrell's marijuana and cocaine sales and the subject properties to establish probable cause, and Scottie has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the two properties were not purchased with Homer Carrell's drug proceeds.
Congress has already made the hard choices in the area of forfeiture. The statute implicitly differentiates between "wrongdoers" and "innocent owners." All persons and entities connected with the real property subject to forfeiture are wrongdoers except those who are innocent owners. Innocent owners are those who have no knowledge of the illegal activities and who have not consented to the illegal activities. As to a wrongdoer, any amount of the invested proceeds traceable to drug activities forfeits the entire property. We have never held that as to a wrongdoer only the funds traceable to illegal activities may be forfeited. If one is an innocent owner, no amount of that person's or entity's funds are forfeitable. On the other hand, if one is a wrongdoer, the full value of the real property is forfeitable because some of the funds invested are traceable as the statute dictates.
15603 85th Ave. N., 933 F.2d at 981-82 (emphasis added). The claimant, not the government, must prove innocent ownership. Two Parcels of Real Property, 92 F.3d at 1129. " Under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), the government need not prove, and the district court need not find, that the claimant had actual knowledge. Rather, it is the claimant's responsibility to prove the absence of actual knowledge." Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-five Thousand, 762 F.2d at 907.
"Allowing post-illegal act transferees who knowingly take an interest in forfeitable property an innocent owner defense because they were not on the scene early enough to consent to the illegal activity would not serve th[e congressional] purpose and would be an absurd construction of the statute. . . . &#182 [I]f a post-illegal act transferee knows of illegal activity which would subject property to forfeiture at the time he takes his interest, he cannot assert the innocent owner defense to forfeiture."
6640 SW 48th St., 41 F.3d at 1452, 1453. From the perspectives of legislative intent as well as policy, we concluded that "[c]lassifying post-illegal act transferees as innocent owners because they had no opportunity to consent creates a sweeping grant of immunity from forfeiture and a gaping loophole in an intentionally comprehensive forfeiture policy." Id. at 1453.
As part of his claim to innocent ownership, Scottie has asserted that he has had duly recorded legal title to the properties that was public record in Jackson County since 1990, when he had joint ownership with his mother, and in his name solely since 1995. Nevertheless, we have recognized that "legal title to property in an entity [or person(s)] other than the drug trafficker does not of itself insulate that property from the reach of Section 881(a)(6)." 900 Rio Vista Blvd., 803 F.2d at 630.
"The rationale for the rule that bare legal title may be insufficient [for standing] is based on a candid determination that things are often not what they appear to be, especially in the world of drug trafficking . . . . In brief, people engaged in illegal activities often attempt to disguise their interests in property by placing title in someone else's name.
In short, courts look behind the formal title to determine whether the record title owner is a 'strawman' set up to conceal the financial affairs of illegal dealings of someone else."
Id. (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. One 1977 36 Foot Cigarette Ocean Racer, 624 F. Supp. 290, 294-95 (S.D. Fla. 1985)); see United States v. One 1982 Porsche 928, 732 F. Supp. 447, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) ("It has been recognized that people engaged in illegal activities, especially when needing to conceal illegitimate funds and being aware of forfeiture statutes, often attempt to disguise their interest in property by not placing title in their own names.").
"As a matter of fact, forfeitable proceeds are much more likely to be possessed by drug dealers themselves than by transferees sufficiently remote to qualify as innocent owners; as a matter of law, it is quite clear that neither an 'associate' in the criminal enterprise nor a temporary custodian of drug proceeds would qualify as an innocent owner; indeed, neither would a sham bona fide purchaser. "
92 Buena Vista Ave., 507 U.S. at 125 n.20, 113 S.Ct. at 1135 n.20 (emphasis added).
The evidence in this record reveals that Scottie's innocent owner defense, as to lack of knowledge that the subject properties were purchased with Homer Carrell's drug proceeds, is unavailing. Scottie knew that neither he nor his mother contributed to the purchase of these two properties. He knew that his father had no legitimate source of income and that he had been imprisoned for drug convictions. Scottie also knew that Homer Carrell lost a 147-acre farm titled in his name to forfeiture in 1993 because of drug transactions that he conducted on that property. Not only was this forfeiture proceeding a matter of public record, but also Elsie Keith attempted to join as a party to the action on her claim of child support from Homer Carrell. That forfeiture proceeding involved the same issues as this case. In 1990, Scottie knew that his mother and he were joint owners of the two subject properties when the deeds were delivered to them and recorded, and he knew when both deeds were transferred into his name and recorded in 1995. Scottie also knew that his father was a fugitive from justice from 1992 until 1998 after Homer Carrell was indicted for intimidating a witness who was providing information to a federal grand jury concerning more of his drug trafficking activities. Thus, Scottie has failed to establish that he did not know that the two subject properties were purchased by his father with drug proceeds in 1990, when the properties were recorded in the names of Scottie and his mother. Similarly, his legal title argument fails because Scottie has not shown that his mother and he were other than straw owners for Homer Carrell. See 900 Rio Vista Blvd., 803 F.2d at 629-30.
With this background showing that these properties are amenable to civil in rem forfeiture because they were purchased with proceeds traceable to Homer Carrell's drug transactions, our decision as to whether the statute of limitations had expired is sharply focused. In a traceable proceeds case, the five-year limitations period under § 1621does not begin to run until the government "discovers" that defendant properties were purchased with or involve proceeds connected to criminal drug activity, and concealment periods toll the running of the limitations time. See 21 U.S.C. § 1621. This "link" was not discovered by the government until its investigation in April, 1996, which disclosed that Homer Carrell purchased the two real properties, although he had no apparent source of legitimate income, and that he affirmatively concealed the true ownership by using his family members as straw owners.13 Homer Carrell's drug crimes or Scottie Carrell and his mother's record ownership of the two properties separately did not yield the probable cause that the government needed to link the properties to those drug crimes for civil forfeiture until the government discovered the connection in April, 1996. The civil forfeiture complaint against the defendant properties was filed on April 16, 1998, well within the five-year limitations period.
Although the properties became forfeitable when Homer Carrell used drug proceeds for their respective purchases, § 1621 tolls the running of the limitations period during concealment of this connection. 19 U.S.C. § 1621(2). Homer Carrell went to great lengths to conceal his purchase of the two defendant properties. He told Robinson, owner of the first property, not to record the deed in 1985 because Homer was going to be serving a prison sentence for his drug trafficking. Five years later, Homer had that property and the second property titled in the names of his ex-wife and son. In 1995, title to both properties was transferred on the county title records to Scottie.14 Although real property cannot be hidden, Homer Carrell concealed his purchases of these properties with his drug proceeds by placing title in the names of his ex-wife and son. Because neither of them had criminal records, there would be no reason to associate their ownership of properties with drug proceeds by searching the county title records, and Homer Carrell was a fugitive for six years.15 This scheme succeeded in concealing Homer Carrell's drug-related proceeds from discovery by the government until its investigation in April, 1996, which is the effective date for the commencement of the five-year limitations period.
"Statutes of limitation sought to be applied to bar rights of the government, must receive a strict construction in favor of the government." E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Davis, 264 U.S. 456, 462, 44 S.Ct. 364, 366 (1924). Under the plain language of § 1621, the legislative intent in a traceable proceeds case is to give the government five years after it discovers that property is tainted by its purchase with drug proceeds to commence a civil in rem forfeiture action against the property. This legislative intent is furthered by tolling the limitations period during any time of concealment, which enables the government to file a civil forfeiture action when it learns or discovers the involvement or purchase of the property with drug proceeds.16 In this case, Homer Carrell set up a straw ownership in his ex-wife and their son by placing title to the defendant properties that he had purchased with drug proceeds in their names. This scheme concealed and disguised his true ownership of the properties and the fact that they had been purchased entirely with his drug proceeds. If the § 1621 limitations period were not tolled until the government discovers the drug-tainted nature of the property, then a convicted drug trafficker, like Homer Carrell, would be rewarded by succeeding in his efforts to conceal the fruits of his criminal drug activities because the government would be precluded from a civil in rem forfeiture proceeding. Such an interpretation would dishonor congressional intent.
The government has appealed the dismissal with prejudice of its civil in rem forfeiture action premised on the expiration of the § 1621 five-year limitations period. As we have explained, the limitations period did not commence until April, 1996, when the government discovered that the subject properties were purchased with proceeds from Homer Carrell's drug transactions. Therefore, the government's civil in rem forfeiture action filed in April, 1998, was well within the limitations period. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district judge's dismissal of this forfeiture proceeding with prejudice and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Honorable Robert L. Vining, Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
Elsie Keith testified at the April 7, 1999, hearing on claimant's motion to dismiss that she and Homer Carrell had been divorced for approximately 20 years.
In the forfeiture action against that property, Elsie Keith sought to enforce a judgment against Homer Carrell for child support arrearage. This claim was denied because she lacked standing to enter the case, since she was not an owner of the property.
In the original Peyton Road decision, a panel determined that the "post-and-walk" procedure of arresting real property, the procedure used by the government in the first case, was unconstitutional. That panel decided that due process was violated unless the owner had been afforded pre-posting notice and an opportunity for a hearing. On rehearing, our en banc court determined that the seizure violated the claimant's due process rights. We concluded that, where the government has not provided predeprivation notice and a hearing, but the property is determined to be subject to forfeiture following due process, the proper remedy is for the government to return rents or other proceeds realized from the property for the period of the unlawful seizure. In this case, however, no rents or proceeds from the subject properties accrued to the government.
This limitations statute applies not only to in rem forfeitures but also to in personam actions "to recover any duty under section 1592(d), 1593a(d) . . . or any pecuniary penalty or forfeiture of property accruing under the customs laws." 19 U.S.C. § 1621. Where § 1621 is applicable to an in personam civil action, the "alleged offense" is the actual misconduct committed by the defendant individual. This statute of limitations recently has been amended to be "5 years after the time when the alleged offense was discovered, or in the case of forfeiture, within 2 years after the time when the involvement of the property in the alleged offense was discovered, whichever was later." Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202, 217 (2000). This amendment is not applicable to this appeal.
In civil in rem forfeiture actions, the Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized that the property is considered the "offender." See, e.g., Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442, 446, 116 S.Ct. 994, 998 (1996) (reciting "a long and unbroken line" of Supreme Court cases embracing the rule that the res is the offender and that forfeiture is warranted notwithstanding the conduct or culpability of the owner); J.W. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505, 511, 41 S.Ct. 189, 191 (1921) ("[T]he thing is primarily considered the offender."); Dobbins's Distillery v. United States, 96 U.S. ( 6 Otto) 395, 401 (1877) ("Nothing can be plainer in legal decision than the proposition that the offence . . . is attached primarily to the distillery, and the real and personal property used in connection with the same, without any regard whatsoever to the personal misconduct or responsibility of the owner . . . ."); The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat) 1, 14 (1827) ("The thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is attached primarily to the thing . . . .").
(6) All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of this title, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this title, except no property shall be forfeited under this paragraph, to the extent of the interest of an owner, by reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner.
21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) (Supp. II 1978). On October 3, 1996, Congress amended § 881(a)(6) by inserting "or listed chemical" after "controlled substance," when it appears in the subsection. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) (Supp. II 1996).
We previously have explained that the "substantial connection" requirement is derived from the legislative history, which states: "Due to the penal nature of forfeiture statutes, it is the intent of these provisions that property would be forfeited only if there is a substantial connection between the property and the underlying criminal activity which the statute seeks to prevent . . . ." Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-five Thousand, 762 F.2d at 902 n.14 (quoting Joint Explanatory Statement of Titles II and III of the Psychotropic Substances Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-633, 92 Stat. 3768 (codified in scattered sections of 18 and 21 U.S.C.), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 9496, 9518, 9522 (emphasis in original).
Regarding a traceable proceeds case, we have clarified: "When probable cause is based on evidence that the participants are generally engaged in the drug business over a period of time, have no other source of income, and that the properties were bought with the income produced from that drug business, it is not necessary to identify specific drug transactions in the complaint." United States v. Two Parcels of Real Property, 92 F.3d 1123, 1127 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). The government's complaint for forfeiture follows the pleading requirements in Rule E(2)(a) of the Supplemental Rules of Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. Id. at 1126. We have recognized that civil forfeiture under § 881(a)(6) is not self-executing because title does not vest in the government until it obtains a judgment of forfeiture. Sea Servs. of the Keys, Inc. v. Florida, 156 F.3d 1151, 1153 (11th Cir. 1998).
[O]n March 31, 1998, I signed a verification of a complaint filed by the Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama in Civil Action Number CV-98-TMP-0907-NE. That complaint describes information developed in the course of a Northern Alabama Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) investigation of the long-term involvement of Homer Lynell Carrrell in drug trafficking, money laundering, and associated criminal activities in the states of Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia. The complaint further describes information which I believe establishes probable cause to believe that two (2) described parcels of real property in Jackson County, Alabama, were purchased by said Homer Lynell Carrell with the proceeds of his involvement in drug trafficking but were titled by him in the name of the claimant, Scottie Lynell Carrell, in order to conceal his (Homer Lynell Carrell's) ownership and control of the parcels and/or to conceal the source or nature of the funds used by him to purchase the parcels.
[A]n extensive investigation by the United States Customs Service (USCS), along with other law enforcement agencies, has found that Homer Lynell Carrrell has been engaged in the large scale distribution of cocaine and marijuana in the Northern District of Alabama since at least 1980; that Carrell's principal source of income during this time period has been the sale and distribution of large quantities of marijuana and cocaine; and that Carrell has engaged in a pattern of conduct designed to conceal his ownership and control of assets obtained with drug proceeds and/or to conceal the true source of the funds used to purchase those assets, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956.
[T]he defendant PARCEL 1 represents proceeds traceable to the sale of marijuana and cocaine and, therefore is subject to forfeiture to the United States of America pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
[T]he defendant PARCEL 2 represents proceeds traceable to the sale of marijuana and cocaine and, therefore, is subject to forfeiture to the United States of America pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
R1-1-1-2 ¶ 4, 3 ¶ 7, 4 ¶ 10.
Congress deleted the innocent owner defense from § 881(a)(4), (6), and (7), which became effective for any forfeiture commenced on or after 120 days from the enactment date, April 25, 2000. Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-185, § 21, 114 Stat. 202, 225 (2000). Because the government's forfeiture in this case predated the effective date for elimination of the innocent owner defense, we address it.
Under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the relation back doctrine in Buena Vista, "title vests on the date of forfeiture but relates back to the date of the illegal activity." United States v. 6640 SW 48th St., 41 F.3d 1448, 1451 n.6 (11th Cir. 1995). Although 6640 SW 48th St. concerns 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), which involves actual use of the property to facilitate a drug crime, rather than § 881(a)(6), we have recognized that "section 881(a)(6) parallels section 881(a)(7), providing for forfeiture of 'moneys' and other valuable properties and containing an identically worded innocent ownership exception." United States v. 1012 Germantown Road, 963 F.2d 1496, 1505 (11th Cir. 1992); 15603 85th Ave. N., 933 F.2d at 980 n.3 Thus, we conclude that our innocent owner holdings under our precedent in 6640 SW 48th St., which derives from Buena Vista, are applicable to our analysis of § 881(a)(6) in this case, which presents the same legislative intent and policy concerns as our innocent owner discussion in 6641 SW 48th St. In a forfeiture case involving property purchased with drug proceeds filed by the government under §§ 881(a)(6) and (a)(7), we recognized regarding the innocent owner defense that "[t]here is nothing in the legislative history of the statute that requires a standard of 'should have known.'" United States v. 6960 Miraflores Ave., 995 F.2d 1558, 1564 (11th Cir. 1993).
In forfeiture cases involving facilitation or commingled traceable proceeds with a claimant's legitimate funds, we have held "that when a claimant to a forfeiture action has actual knowledge, at any time prior to the initiation of the forfeiture proceeding, that claimant's legitimate funds are commingled with drug proceeds, traceable in accord with the forfeiture statute, the legitimate funds are subject to forfeiture." 15603 85th Ave. N., 933 F.2d at 982. We also have applied the "all that reasonably could be expected" language of Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 689, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 2094 (1974), for such § 881(a)(6) proceedings: "a claimant who has actual knowledge of the commingling of legitimate and drug funds may be spared forfeiture as an innocent owner if the claimant can prove that everything reasonably possible was done to withdraw the commingled funds or to dispose of the property." 15603 85th Ave. N., 933 F.2d at 982. This case is even stronger than a case involving commingled funds because there is no allegation that Scottie or his mother contributed to the purchase of the subject properties.
[AUSA]: . . . But the five-year statute of limitations applies from the time the government first learns of the offense. The offense would be when it first learned that the property was purchased with drug money, and that's what would make the property subject to forfeiture.
That was learned by the government during interviews in early April of '96, and the government then filed its forfeiture action that same month, once the government learned that those two properties were subject to forfeiture.
[AUSA]: In April of '96.
THE COURT: - they told you, oh, this property was bought from us with drug proceeds money.
[AUSA]: Yes, I think that's what I am telling the Court.
THE COURT: That Mr. Green and Mr. Robinson sat there and said, yeah, I was paid with drug proceeds money?
[AUSA]: They were - Agent Gorham interviewed them, and they were told - Agent Gorham was told by those two individuals that, in fact, Mr. Carrell, Homer Lynell Carrell, had purchased those properties from them and had basically arranged it so that the properties were placed in nominees. As this Court is well aware, that's why drug dealers use nominees, to hide property.
THE COURT: But Mr. Robinson or Mr. Green, or whoever the sellers were, didn't forthrightly admit to you, I don't think, or, you know, maybe they did, and you can tell me that they forthrightly admitted to you that they knew that the money that was being paid was drug proceeds money.
AUSA: No, sir, I would not say that.
[AUSA]: Their information that they provided in their interviews was that, in fact, Homer Lynell Carrell had bought those two properties from them.
[AUSA]: Of course, as [defense counsel] pointed out to the Court, the government certainly has been well aware of Mr. Carrell's drug activities, drug trafficking activities and other illegal activities since back to at least 1988.
THE COURT: I guess the government is rightly suspicious that the money used to buy this property was, in fact, drug proceeds money based on your knowledge of his criminal activity.
[AUSA]: Exactly, Your Honor. And the government did not learn of these two pieces - did not learn of the existence of these two pieces of property as they were connected to Homer Lynell Carrell until 1996.
THE COURT: That takes me back to the question I asked you. What was it about the interviews in April of '96 that created in your mind the suspicion that drug proceeds were used to buy this property, other than your pre-existing knowledge of Mr. Carrell's activity? That's why I asked you that.
There was nothing that Mr. Green or Mr. Robinson said to you that pointed out that these properties were bought with drug proceeds. I mean, you p[u]t that connection together based on your prior knowledge of what Mr. Carrell was up to.
[AUSA]: Yes, sir. Your Honor, the two individuals that Agent Gorham interviewed informed him that Mr. Carrell, the senior Mr. Carrell, asked them to put the property in nominee names for the purpose of hiding title, because, in one instance, he was about to go off to jail, I believe, and that's why he wanted to hide the property.
THE COURT: Let me ask it this way. If the government were to discover tomorrow another piece of property out there and a recorded deed in Homer Lynell Carrell's name, and that's all you had, you discovered another piece of property out there that was in his name, I suspect that you would rightly suspect at that point that that was also drug proceeds, just based on the history of Homer Lynell Carrell?
[AUSA]: I would have a suspicion, Your Honor, but that suspicion alone would not be - would not rise to the level of probable cause that would be necessary to file a forfeiture action against it.
The government's position, Your Honor, is that this action was brought well within the five-year statute of limitations because the five-year clock didn't start running until April of '96 when the government first learned of Homer Lynell Carrell's involvement with the purchase of those two defendant parcels of property.
Each of these title transfers of real property constituted a "financial transaction" under § 1956(c)(4), and the 1995 transactions clearly fall within the five-year statute of limitations for civil forfeiture under § 981(a)(1)(A).
In Homer Carrell's first in rem forfeiture in 1993, the loss of his 147-acre farm, title in his name made the civil forfeiture in that facilitation case made it easy for the government to obtain forteiture, and his ex-wife was not allowed to join as a party, despite her claim of delinquent child support, because she lacked standing as a owner. By using his drug proceeds to purchase the subject properties but titling them in the names of his ex-wife and son, Homer was able to hide the fact that he was the actual owner of the properties and that his ex-wife and son were nominees.
Contrariwise, using the government's knowledge of the underlying drug crime as the beginning date for the limitations period of § 1621 would mean that, in many cases, the five-year limitations period would expire before the government's civil forfeiture rights accrued. Examples of possible misuse of § 1621 under such an interpretation include: an individual using ten-year-old, unconcealed drug proceeds to purchase real property, but the government would be barred from filing a forfeiture action against the property if it had discovered the drug activity generating the proceeds five or ten years earlier, such as when the purchaser was prosecuted and convicted but retained the drug proceeds; no prosecution occurred against the purchaser because vital evidence was suppressed; or the purchaser was not personally involved in the criminal activity but received what he or she knew at the time to be drug proceeds by gift or inheritance. In these examples, the limitations period would have expired before the government's forfeiture against the property materialized if "the alleged offense" of § 1621 were interpreted to be the underlying drug crime rather than the date that the government discovered the connection of drug proceeds with or their use to purchase property.
But see United States v. Twenty-seven Parcels of Real Property, 236 F.3d 438, 440 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding that the limitations period under § 1621 begins to run upon the government's discovery of the underlying criminal offense); United States v. 874 Gartel Drive, 79 F.3d 918, 922 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (same).
Both the magistrate judge and the district judge adopted the "should have known standard" from Santana v. United States Customs Serv., 972 F. Supp. 304, 306 (M..D. Pa. 1997), which is not binding authority in our circuit. See R1-17-6; R1-19-3.


text:
Geoffrey Robertson QC is founder and joint head of Doughty Street Chambers.
Geoffrey has defended in many trials of murder and other serious offences, and a number of associated appeals. He defended in R v Wang Yam, a three month Old Bailey trial in 2010 which frequently had to go into camera, but could not appear at the retrial in which the defendant was convicted. He appeared on appeal – see R v Wang Yam  EWCA Crim 2072. Amongst his groundbreaking criminal appeal cases are R v Ahluwalia, which established the right of beaten women to plead diminished responsibility for killing their assailant partners as a result of traumatic stress disorders (this case was the subject of several books and a movie). He argued the landmark case of Pratt & Morgan v AG of Jamaica  2 AC1 in which the Privy Council ruled that the death sentence could not be carried out on men who had served several years on death row: as a consequence of this case, hundreds of convicts facing execution in the Caribbean have had their death sentences commuted.
Geoffrey appeared in the past in many high profile terrorist cases involving IRA suspects: the Brighton bombing (his client was the only defendant to be acquitted); and he successfully defended the IRA bomb-maker Dessie Ellis, the first Irish national to be extradited to the UK. He also defended in the “persons unknown” anarchist case (R v Ronan Bennett and ors) and successfully appealed the conviction in the ‘Winchester 3 case (R v McCann & ors, 92 Cr AppR239). He argued the leading case of R v Al Bashir Mohammed Al Faqih  in which the Court of Appeal determined the definition of “Terrorism” under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Geoffrey has handled an array of appeals in criminal matters – from the most serious – see Pratt, above, and many other successful murder appeals in the Privy Council, such as R v Reid & Dennis AC 363 (seven convictions quashed through misdirection of eyewitness evidence) to the recent case of R v Mears  EWCA Crim 2651. There, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction of the man who over-promoted “Lapland” because a juror had been communicating via mobile telephone with her boyfriend in the public gallery. He has appeared in a number of “reference back” cases in the Court of Appeal on behalf of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, most recently (and successfully)R v Allen Stevens  EWCA Crim 2630. He has also dealt with national security issues in the House of Lords – see R v Shayler  UKHL II and issues such as the right of journalists to protect their sources of information – Goodwin v UK,  22 EHRR 123, a case which he won in the European Court after losing in every court below. Mr. Robertson has conducted many appeals involving important points of criminal law – e.g. R v Elizabeth Forsythe  2 Criminal Appeal reports 299, where he had the conviction of Asil Nadir’s assistant quashed, R v Felixstowe Justices ex p David Leigh 2 AC1, which established the right of the press to know details of Justices trying criminal cases.
Geoffrey Robertson served as a UN appeal judge, as President of the War Crimes Court in Sierra Leone (which indicted Charles Taylor), from 2002-2007, and delivered a number of groundbreaking judgments, e.g. on the illegality of recruiting child soldiers and the limits of amnesty. His book on international criminal law – “Crimes Against Humanity” is now in its fourth edition. He has appeared at the ICTY in the leading case of ex parte Jonathan Randall and the Washington Post, successfully establishing a testamentary privilege for war correspondents. He has a wide advisory practice in respect of war crimes and in 2008 was appointed by the UN to its Justice Council as a ‘distinguished jurist’ member.
Geoffrey has appeared as counsel in some of the most publicised inquests of recent times, including that of Helen Smith (which inspired two books, one by Paul Foot), R v West Yorkshire Coroner, ex parte Smith (No 2),  Q.B.1096. He appeared in the first friendly fire inquest ,Oxford Coroner’s Court, 18th May 1992, on behalf of the families of nine British soldiers killed by American pilots in the first Gulf War. He also appeared for the family of Cynthia Jarrett, (Tottenham Coroner’s Court, November 1985), in the inquest into the police raid which started the Broadwater Farm riots. Geoffrey's writing, both in newspaper articles and in his book "Freedom, the Individual and The Law" has contributed to recent changes in coronial procedures.
Geoffrey has argued the most important case on national security in recent times at first instance, court of appeal and House of Lords, namely R v Shayler  UKHL 11. He was counsel for the main defendant, Duncan Campbell in the legendary "ABC" case (R v Aubrey, Berry and Campbell, 1978, unreported) which first led to the revelation of the existence of GCHQ. More recently, he was counsel for the New York Times and other international media in the important case of Binyan Mohamed, EWCA Civ 65, in the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal: he produced the evidence from the US that undermined the government's position. The appeal of Wang Yam,  EWCA Crim 2072, which has a significant national security dimension, is in the Strasbourg court at present.
Geoffrey is frequently consulted on cases of extradition. He has been engaged in recent years on behalf of Mr. Galbaransingh in Trinidad in a long-running case in which extradition has now finally been refused (there are extensive judgments at first instance and in the Court of Appeal),- Galbarasingh v A-G of Trinidad and Tobago, TT 2007 CA 44. He represented Julian Assange in the extradition proceedings before the District Court judge,  EWHC 3473 (Admin), and has written about and provided legal opinions for the press on the attempted extradition of Gary Mackinnon.
Geoffrey acted for the Human Rights and Equality Commission in the very important case of Najibullah Saeedi v The Secretary of State for the Home Department,  EWCA Civ 990, both in the Court of Appeal and in the European Court of Justice. This was the first case in which the court had interpreted the "right to dignity" in Article 1 of the Lisbon Treaty. The result changed the interpretation of the Dublin Convention and gave greater protection to immigrants and asylum seekers. Geoffrey has also acted in a series of important immigration cases in the High Court and Court of Appeal: see Vasquez v Asylum and Immigration Tribunal  EWCA Civ 491 and MW (DRC) v Secretary of State  EWCA Civ 1240 - the latter an important Court of Appeal decision on the approach to "settled immigrants".
Geoffrey has been at the forefront of media law and practice over the past thirty years and is the author of "Robertson & Nicol on Media Law (written with Sir Andrew Nicol, now a High Court judge. He has been counsel in many landmark media law cases such as Jameel v Wall Street Journal (Europe), UKHL 44, where the House of Lords quashed an adverse jury verdict and developed a public interest defence for the media in defamation cases. Geoffrey acted for The Times, The Guardian and The Economist in the first media case heard by the Supreme Court, AKMQG v Her Majesty’s Treasury, UKSC1, the “Alphabet Soup” decision where the court deprecated the use of acronyms to anonymise parties to litigation. He also acted in the High Court and Court of Appeal in a case brought to argue for public access to Royal wills: in the matter of The Estate of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother v Robert Andrew Brown  UKHC 1607 (Fam). He conducted the defence of the New York Times in Mardas v New York Times (settled)  EWHC 3135 (QB) and is currently appearing in two major libel actions, for Alexander Lebedev (proprietor of The Independent in Polonsky v Lebedev and for the Magnitsky campaigners in Karpov v Bill Browder and Hermitage. He has an extensive advisory practice and is called upon to provide advice to many newspapers, broadcasters and media corporations.
Honorary Degrees (Doctor of Laws) from Sydney, Brunel and Bucharest Universities.
Visiting Professor at Queen Mary College and the New College of the Humanities.
2011 – New York Bar Association Award for Achievement in International Law and Policy.

matches: EWCA EWCA EWCA UKHL UKHL EWCA EWCA EWCA EWCA EWCA UKHL