government's forfeiture website, see id. Rule G(4)(a) (authorizing notice by publication). Moreover, Rule G(4)(b)(v) provides, "[a] potential claimant who had actual notice of a forfeiture action may not oppose or seek relief from forfeiture because of the government's failure to send the required notice." By filing his Verified Proof of Claim, Moore demonstrated he had actual notice of the forfeiture action. We reject his excuses for failing to file an answer to the complaint.
We also reject Moore's remaining arguments for failing to file an answer or respond to the interrogatories—his current attorney did not have time to respond, his attorney was unable to file an appropriate timely response due to the complexity of the law, and the government shutdown prevented him from protecting his rights. He does not claim to have made any attempt to file an answer or respond to the interrogatories between June 14, 2013, the date his attorney entered his appearance in this case, and September 27, 2013, the date the government moved to strike the Verified Proof of Claim. During this period, the government agreed to four requests for more time. Moore has offered no reasonable explanation for his inability to prepare the necessary filings for over three months. His reliance on the government shutdown is contrived and also unavailing; the government had filed its motion to strike before the shutdown occurred and Moore alleges no attempted action on his part that was frustrated by the shutdown.[1] Finally, we decline his invitation to excuse
- ↑ The shutdown occurred October 1 to October 16, 2013. The federal district court remained open, however. In addition, the Assistant United States Attorney
- 4 -
