time and circumstances of [her] acquisition of the right, title, or interest in the property, any additional facts supporting [her] claim, and the relief sought.” 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(3). 16 . 18 U.S.C. § 1963(l), which concerns the forfeiture of assets as part of a criminal penalty, and Section 853(n) contain identical procedures for the hearing of third-party claims to assets subject to forfeiture. 17 . The government additionally argues that Griffin's prospective claim would also fail on the merits. (Gov. Opp. at 3.) However, in light of holding that Griffin lacks standing to file a third-party petition, the court need not also address the merits of Griffin’s prospective claim. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 109-10, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998)
holding that courts lack jurisdiction to address merits of a claim where party raising the claim is found to lack standing to maintain suit holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act holding after we found standing following a district courts dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction that the merits will be for the district court to decide on remand holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error holding that this lack of any reasonable expectation of continued employment suffices to establish the lack of property in the constitutional sense and hence the lack of a viable due process claim