UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT August 25, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

STEVEN DAVID RANGEL § § Plaintiff § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00275 § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUED MOTION TO SET ASIDE FORFEITURE On July 23, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued her “Memorandum and Recommendation to Grant-In-Part Plaintiff’s Construed Motion to Set Aside Forfeiture” (D.E. 23). The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);

(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc.,

(5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 23), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Rangel’s construed Title

(e) motion (see D.E. 1, 9, 17, 22) to set aside the forfeiture of (1) a 2010 Jaguar Sedan; (2) a 2009 Jaguar Sedan; (3) $5,719 in U.S. currency ; (4) eight cellphones; (5) a 22” gold chain with a 3” round pendant; (6) a 30” gold braided chain with a cross pendant; and (7) a set of silver earrings is GRANTED.! The Government’s motion for summary judgment (D.E. 17) regarding the Versace wristwatch is unopposed and is GRANTED. ORDERED on August 25, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

| The Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation impliedly recommends that the Court DENY IN PART the motion to the extent that its description of the forfeited property disagrees with the description noted by the Government—a result to which Plaintiff agrees. The Court concurs and it is so ORDERED. 2/2