Cite as: 506 U. S. 80 (1992)
Opinion of Rehnquist, C. J.
final decree entered by the District Court in favor of the Government. It is petitioner's failure to post a bond or obtain a stay of that judgment which has brought the present controversy to this Court.
In any event, even if there are circumstances in which funds that have been deposited into the Treasury may be returned absent an appropriation, I believe it unnecessary to plow that uncharted ground here. The general appropriation for payment of judgments against the United States provides in part:
"(a) Necessary amounts are appropriated to pay final judgments, awards, compromise settlements, and interest and costs specified in the judgments or otherwise authorized by law when—
"(1) payment is not otherwise provided for; "(2) payment is certified by the Comptroller General; and
"(3) the judgment, award, or settlement is payable— "(A) under section 2414, 2517, 2672, or 2677 of title 28. . . ." 31 U. S. C. § 1304.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 2414, in turn, authorizes the payment of "final judgments rendered by a district court . . . against the United States." Together, §§ 1304 and 2414 would seem to authorize the return of funds in this case in the event petitioner were to prevail in the underlying forfeiture action.
But further inquiry is required, for we have said that § 1304 "does not create an all-purpose fund for judicial disbursement. . . . Rather, funds may be paid out only on the basis of a judgment based on a substantive right to compensation based on the express terms of a specific statute." Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U. S. 414, 432 (1990). The question, then, is whether petitioner would have a "substantive right to compensation" if it were to prevail in this forfeiture proceeding. I believe 28 U. S. C. § 2465 provides such a right here. That section provides: "Upon
95
Page: Index Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007