L.Ed.2d 881 (1988), relied upon by the Government in its argument for dismissal, involved an airplane which was taken by the Government from the territorial jurisdiction of this Court during the pendency of the appeal. No stay having been entered, this Circuit held that it was without in personam jurisdiction over the Government that would have enabled the court to require the return of the plane. Therefore, this Court lost in rem jurisdiction when the res was legally removed from the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. While some other circuits have not followed One Lear Jet’s, holding that the court does not have in personam jurisdiction in an in rem proceeding, it remains the law in this Circuit. See United States v. $95,945.18 in U.S. Currency, 913 F.2d 1106, 1109 (4th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Aiello, 912 F.2d 4, 6-7 (2d
holding that although money had been released into us treasury court retained in personam jurisdiction over government and could order return of funds holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture holding that the district court retained jurisdiction to resolve a dispute over an injunction bond even where the underlying dispute had itself been dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding that although the trial court had dismissed the cause with prejudice it retained jurisdiction to give effect to the settlement order