United States v. Calderin-Pascual

── United States v. Calderin-Pascual ── Case No.: 24-1836 Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Date: April 03, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 24-1836 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. OSVALDO CALDERIN-PASCUAL, a/k/a Cubano, a/k/a Calde, Defendant, DAVID CALDERIN-PASCUAL, Claimant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Aida M. Delgado-Colón, U.S. District Judge] Before Barron, Chief Judge, Breyer,* Associate Justice, Gelpí, Circuit Judge. George T. Pallas, with whom George T. Pallas, P.A. was on brief, for appellant. Jacob H. Larson, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney, Juan Carlos Reyes-Ramos, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief Appellate Division, and Gabriella S. Paglieri, Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief, for appellee. * Hon. Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation. April 3, 2026  BARRON, Chief Judge. This appeal challenges an order denying David Calderin-Pascual's petition in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, in which he asserted an ownership interest in a boat that was subject to a preliminary order of forfeiture based on his brother's federal convictions. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the denial and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Under 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1), persons convicted of certain crimes, like David Calderin-Pascual's brother, Osvaldo Calderin-Pascual,1 must "forfeit to the United States . . . any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation." If the district court "finds that property is subject to forfeiture, it must promptly enter a preliminary order of forfeiture . . . without regard to any third party's interest in the property." Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(A). Third-party claimants, like David himself, are not without recourse, however. Upon entry of a preliminary order of forfeiture, they may "petition the [district] court for a hearing to evaluate [their] interest in the property." United States v. Catala, 870 F.3d 6, 9 (1st Cir. 2017); see also Libretti v. United 1To avoid confusion, we refer to the two brothers by their first names. - 3 - States, 516 U.S. 29, 44 (1995) ("[T]hird-party claimants can establish their entitlement to return of the assets only by means of the hearing afforded under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)."). When a third party "files a petition asserting an interest in the property to be forfeited, the [district] court must conduct an ancillary proceeding." Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)(1). Before a hearing is held on that petition, however, see id. 32.2(c)(1)(B), the district court, taking "the facts set forth in the petition" as true, "may, on motion, dismiss the petition . . . for failure to state a claim," id. 32.2(c)(1)(A). Under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(3), the petition must "set forth . . . the time and circumstances of the [third party's] acquisition of the . . . property." Relatedly, "[t]o prevail on the merits," "a third party . . . must establish that his interest in that specific property existed before the commission of the crime that led to the forfeiture." Catala, 870 F.3d at 10. Thus, to survive a mo