govinfo:USCOURTS-mtd-6_19-cr-00003-8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONT ANA 
HELENA DIVISION 
UNITED ST ATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY KENNETH KNAPP, 
Defendant. 
CR-19-03-H-CCL 
AMENDED ORDER 
Before the Court is Defendant's "Motion to Clarify Appellate Rights as it 
Concerns Forfeiture of Firearms." (Doc. 88). Although counsel for the United 
States indicated that the government opposes the motion when asked for his 
position, the United States has not filed a brief in opposition to the pending 
motion. The Court has reviewed the record in its entirety and is prepared to rule. 
BACKGROUND 
On August 21, 2019, the United States filed a superseding information 
charging Defendant with being a prohibited person in possession of firearms and 
ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l). The superseding information 
also included a forfeiture count specifically identifying sixteen separate firearms 
and generally identifying various rounds of ammunition seized during the April 3, 
2019, search of Defendant's home. 
Case 6:19-cr-00003-BMM     Document 93     Filed 12/20/19     Page 1 of 3
The Court held a hearing on August 21, 2019, at which time Defendant 
waived his right to be charged by the grand jury, allowing the filing of the 
superseding information. On August 22, 2019, the Court entered an order setting 
trial for October 22, 2019. (Doc. 41). 
Although the parties presented a special verdict form regarding the 
forfeiture count, neither party addressed the forfeiture issue in their proposed jury 
instructions, during pre-trial briefing, or at the final pre-trial conference held 
immediately before trial began on October 22, 2019. The Court raised the issue in 
chambers with counsel after the jury began its deliberations and the parties agreed 
that, should the jury return a guilty verdict, the forfeiture issue could be addressed 
administratively so that the jury would not need to remain and address the 
forfeiture count. 
After the clerk published the verdict in open court, the parties stipulated to 
the preliminary forfeiture of eleven of the sixteen firearms listed in the forfeiture 
count of the superseding information. Defendant refused to stipulate as to five of 
the sixteen seized firearms because he contends that those firearms are owned by 
either his sister or wife. 
The Court then ordered forfeiture of the named and described firearms. 
Defendant apparently construes the Court's order from the bench as entry of a 
preliminary order of forfeiture. (See Doc. 88 at 2) 
2 
Case 6:19-cr-00003-BMM     Document 93     Filed 12/20/19     Page 2 of 3
DISCUSSION 
Defendant now seeks to clarify that he has not agreed to a final order of 
forfeiture as to the eleven weapons he admits to owning. In essence, Defendant 
appears to be asking the Court to include in both the preliminary and final order of 
forfeiture conditions reasonably necessary to preserve the subject property's value 
pending any appeal. The Court has the discretion to include such conditions under 
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(3). 
Accordingly, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion for clarification (Doc. 
88) is GRANTED. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States shall move for entry of 
a proposed order of forfeiture listing the eleven firearms covered by the oral 
stipulation and including language which the parties agree is sufficient to preserve 
the value of those firearms pending appeal. 
Dated this 20th day of December, 2019. 
3 
Case 6:19-cr-00003-BMM     Document 93     Filed 12/20/19     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight