context: Moreover, if a petition sufficiently alleges a claim pursuant to Section 853(n), the burden of demonstrating a petitioner's ownership of or right, title, or interest in property included in a preliminary order of forfeiture is "ultimately on the petitioner to prove ... by a preponderance of the evidence," rather than on the government.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 404 F.3d 1119, 1125
citation_a.parenthetical: "The petitioner bears the burden of proving his right, title, or interest under SS 853(n
citation_a.sentence: Pacheco, 393 F.3d at 351; United States v. Nava, 404 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir.2005) (“The petitioner bears the burden of proving his right, title, or interest under § 853(n)(6).”). Thus, had their petition survived the government’s motion, the Watts Petitioners would have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that they have a superior interest in the Subject Funds pursuant to Section 853(n), which they cannot do.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 459 F.3d 381, 381
citation_b.parenthetical: "An ancillary proceeding is evidently the only avenue for a post-indictment third-party claim to forfeited property ...."
citation_b.sentence: See De Almeida, 459 F.3d at 381 (“An ancillary proceeding is evidently the only avenue for a post-indictment third-party claim to forfeited property ....”) (emphasis in original); see also 21 U.S.C. § 853(k)(1) (“[N]o party claiming an interest in property subject to forfeiture ... may intervene in a trial or appeal of a criminal case involving the forfeiture of such property....”).