and the government agree that she was not among those parties provided with direct written notice of the Preliminary Orders of Forfeiture. (See Griffin Ltr. ¶ 3; ECF No. 559, Gov’t Opp. to Griffin Ltr. (“Gov. Opp.”) at 2; see also ECF No. 538, Certificate of Service.) Therefore, Griffin’s deadline for filing a petition did not expire until thirty-two days after the government’s final publication of notice of the Preliminary Orders of Forfeiture on June 7, 2012; that is, on July 9, 2012. See 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2) (providing for a period of thirty days from the date of final publication for a claimant to file a petition); Local Civ. R. 6.4 (providing that, in computing any period of time, if the last day of a period falls on a weekend or legal holiday, then the perio 344 F.Supp.2d at 372 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court agrees with the
holding that executives participating in an unfunded top hat plan had no ownership interest in the  funds that could be forfeited the funds remain part of the general assets of the corporation subject to the claims of its general creditors holding that a general creditor does not have a property interest superior to defendants in any particular asset or funds until he has obtained some judgment and secures that asset or those funds holding that it was not essential to an action by a supplier on a payment bond under the miller act that a demand be made on the general contractor for payment  although there was evidence in the case from which it could be found that the materialman looked to the general contractor for payment  since the statute does not require a demand for payment but merely requires written notice of the claim holding that a creditor did not incur debt for the purpose of set off where it stopped payment to the debtor holding that party that did not establish ownership in specific funds was a general creditor that only had a right to payment