FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT May 13, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble Walter K. Stapleton, United States Circuit Judg e for the Third Circuit Court * of Appe als, sitting by

designation. [ P U B L I S H ] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11228

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 5 4 6 - CR- T- 2 6 M SS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A L F R E D O E D U A R D O P O L O P A D R O N , a .k .a . A lb e r to P a d r o n , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 13, 2008) B efo re B A R K E T T , F A Y an d S T A P L E T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg e:Caruso pled guilty to the counts in this indi ctment on June 7, 2006. 1 2 A lf r e d o E d u a r d o P o lo P a d r o n a p p e a ls f r o m h is c o n v ic tio n a n d 2 4 - m o n th s e n t e n c e o n o n e c o u n to f c o n s p i r a c y t o c o mmi tma i l f r a u d i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U . S. C. § § 3 7 1 a n d 1 3 4 1 , a n d f

o u rc o u n ts o f

m a il f r a u d in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 1 . A j ur y c onvi c t e d P a dr on of the m a i l f

r a ud ba s e d on hi s i nvol ve m e ntw i th a pe r s ona l i nj ur y c l i ni c w hi c h obt a i ne d m one y f r om i ns ur a nc e c om pa ni e s by s ubm i t t i ng f

a l s e c l a i m s vi a U ni t e d S t a t e s m a i l . O n a ppe a l , P a dr on a r gue s tha tthe G o v ern m en t ’ s co n d u cti n i n v est i g at i n g h i m am o u n t ed t o en trap m en t . H e al so c h a lle n g e s th r e e e v id e n tia r y ru lin g s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a d e d u r in g h is tr ia l. F i na l l y , he a ppe a l s f

r om hi s s e nt e nc e on gr ounds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n the l oss c al cul at i on and thatthe di stri ctcourtl ac ked st atut ory aut ho ri ty t o i m po se a f or f e i tur e m one y j udgm e nta ga i ns thi m . A f t e rc a r e f ul r e vi e w a nd c ons i de r a t i on of the br i e f s a nd or a l a r gum e ntof

c ouns e l , w e a f

f i r m P a dr on’ s c onvi c t i on a nd se nt ence . I . FACT S P a dr on w a s w or ki ng a s a j a ni t orf orthe T a m pa H ous i ng A uthor i ty w he n he m etco-defe nd ant , and l at ergi rl fr i end, E l i zabeth C aruso i n 1 99 6. C aruso m et 1 M ic h a e l S p e r o u n e s , a g o v e r n m e n t in f o r m a n t in th is c a s e , w h ile s h e w a s w o r k in g in a p e r s o n a l in

ju r y c lin ic . C a ru s o te s tif ie d a t tr ia l th a t s h e s u s p e c te d th a t p a tie n ts3

w e r e be i ng pa i d a nd tha tf a l s e i ns ur a nc e c l a i m s w e r e be i ng f i l e d a tboth of

the pers on al i nj ury c l i ni cs w here she w orked i n t he l at e 199 0s. S peroun es w as an att orney w ho re pres ent ed cl i ent s f rom on e of the cl i ni cs i n p ursui ng thei r per sonal in ju r y c la im s , a n d h e w a s in v o lv e d in m a n y a s p e c ts o f th e in s u r a n c e f

r a u d in d u s tr y . I n D e c e m be r1998, the F B I l a unc he d a n i nve s t i ga t i on of i ns ur a nc e f

r a ud in v o lv in g s ta g e d a n d n o n e x is te n t a c c id e n ts c a lle d o p e r a tio n “M is p la c e d T ru s t” . S peroun es beca m e acoop er at i ng w i tness i n 1 99 8 aft erhe re ce i ved a grand j ury s ubpoe na f

orr e c or ds f

r om hi s l a w pr a c t i c e . W i th hi s he l p, the F B I c r e a t e d T r i de nt V e ntur e G r oup i n N ove m be r1999 t o i nf i l tr a t e the s t a ge d a c c i de nti ns ur a nc e f r a ud ne tw or k. T r i de ntw a s a n unde r c ove rbus i ne s s w hi c h pos e d a s a n a dva nc e f undi ng c o m p a n y , a c o m p a n y w h ic h w o u ld a d v a n c e m o n e y to in d iv id u a ls w h o e x p e c t to r e c e iv e in s u r a n c e s e ttle m e n ts o n b o d ily in ju ry c la im s in e x c h a n g e f o rth e r ig h t to col l ec ta gre at eram ou ntof m on ey up on se t t l em ent . S peroun es and F B I S peci al A g e n t G r ic e l S a s s w e r e r e s p o n s ib le f o rru n n in g T r id e n t, a n d th e y w e r e r e s p o n s ib le fo r i n i t i at i n g co n t actw i th p eo p l e i n th e p erso n al i n j u ry cl i n i c b u si n ess. C a rus o de c i de d t o ope n he row n pe r s ona l i nj ur y c l i ni c i n D e c e m be r1999 or Ja nu ary 200 0, and she di sc usse d h erpl an w i th P adron. C aruso and P adron each i nv es t ed $1 0, 00 0 t o o pen t he new cl i ni c, ca l l ed the T am pa B ay P er sonal Inj ury C lin ic ( “T B P I C ” ) . C a ru s o w a s T B P I C ’s p r e s id e n t, a n d P a d r o n s e r v e d a s itsThe F BI did not init ially

tell clinic owner s that their business was illeg al, though they 2 us ually dis c los e d this w ith in t

hefirs t f e w m e e tin g s. 4 tr e a s u r e ra n d s e c r e ta r y . I n M a r c h 2 0 0 0 , S p e r o u n e s a n d S p e c ia l A g e n t S a s s m e t w ith C a ru s o a n d to ld her abo utT ri dent ’ s a dv ance fund i ng bu si ness , bu tthey di d n ott el l her thati tw as i l l egal atthatt i m e. C aruso sub se qu ent l y t ol d P adron abo utT ri dentand sug gest ed 2 thatthey w ork t og ether. S peroun es and S as s began vi si t i ng T B P IC on a r egul ar b a s is a n d d e v e lo p e d s tr o n g p e r s o n a l r e la tio n s h ip s w ith C a ru s o a n d P a d r o n . T hr ough a s e r i e s of

m e e t i ngs i n A pr i l 2000, T r i de ntpr ovi de d a dva nc e f undi ng f or C athy C as t i l l o, a w om an thatC aruso and P adron ret ai ned t o actas a s t aged a c c id e n t v ic tim . T r id e n t a d v a n c e d C a s tillo $ 5 0 0 , P a d r o n in s tru c te d h e rw h e r e to t e l l the i ns ur a nc e i nve s t i ga t ors he w a s s i t t i ng a tthe t i m e of the a c c i de nt , a nd T B P I C la te rb ille d C a s tillo ’s in s u r a n c e c o m p a n y f o rh e rtr e a tm e n t. I n e a r ly J u n e 2 0 0 1 , c o - d e f e n d a n t E m m a n u e l M e llo n v is ite d T B P I C a n d to ld C a rus o a nd P a dr on tha the ha d be e n r e f e r r e d t o the m by T r i de nt , a nd tha the w a n te d to s e n d “p a tie n ts ” to T B P I C . S p e r o u n e s m e t w ith C a ru s o a n d P a d r o n to vouc h f orM e l l on a nd c onf

i r m e d tha tT r i de ntha d f unde d s t a ge d a c c i de nt s f or M e l l on be f

or e . C a rus o a nd P a dr on the n a gr e e d t o w or k w i th M e l l on, a nd M e l l on e ve ntua l l y r e f

e r r e d the pa t i e nt s w ho pa r t i c i pa t e d i n the J une 7 a nd 12, 2001The patients from the June 7 and June 12, 2001, ac cidents all initially sought treatment 3 at TB PI C, though the one s from the June 7 acc ident later sought treatment at another c linic as we ll. 5 a c c id e n ts th a t a r e th e b a s is o f P a d r o n ’s in d ic tm e n t. 3 In O ct ob er20 01 , the F B I e nd ed the un derc ov eri nv es t i gat i on . L at erthat year, C aru so an d P ad ro n p art ed w ays b ecau se o f p erso n al an d b u si n ess p ro b l em s, a n d P a d r o n b o u g h t C a ru s o ’s in te r e s t in T B P I C . I I . PRO CED U RA L H I STO RY P a dr on w a s i ndi c t e d f

orm a i l f r a ud a nd w e ntt o tr i a l w i th thr e e c ode f e nda nt s . H e r a i s e d a n e ntr a pm e ntde f e ns e a nd tw i c e m ove d f ora j udgm e ntof a c qui t t a l ba s e d on the a r gum e nttha tthe G ove r nm e ntha d e nga ge d i n outr a ge ous cond uctand fai l ed t o p re se ntevi dence of predi sposi t i on . T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed both m ot i ons , butdi d gi ve the j ur y a n e ntr a pm e nti ns truc t i on. T he j ur y f ound P ad ro n g u i l ty o f al l co u n t s. A ft erthe tri al , the di stri ctcourtent er ed a prel i m i nary order of forf ei ture w hi c h c ont a i ne d a m one y j udgm e nti n the a m ountof $89, 120. 19. P a dr on f

i l e d a re new ed m ot i on for aj ud gm entof ac qu i t t al base d o n ent rapm ent , and fi l ed for a new tri al base d o n sever al al l egedl y e rr on eous evi dent i ary rul i ng s. T he court de ni e d both m ot i ons a nd s e nt e nc e d P a dr on t o tw e nty - f ourm onths i n pr i s on on ea ch coun t , t o b e s erved con curr ent l y. T he courtal so ordere d P adron t o p ay6

$88, 241. 97 i n r e s t i tut i on, a nd i nc l ude d the $89, 120. 19 f or f e i tur e m one y j udgm e nt in th e s e n te n c e . T h is a p p e a l f o llo w e d . I I I . ST AN DA RDS OF R EVI EW S ever al st andards of re vi ew appl y t o t hi s app ea l . F i rs t , “ [w ] hen an entrapm entdefe nse i s r ej ec t ed by the j ury, [our] re vi ew i s l i m i t ed t o . . . w hether the e vi de nc e w a s s uf

f i c i e ntf ora r e a s ona bl e j ur y t o c onc l ude tha tthe de f e nda nt w a s pr e di s pos e d t o t a ke pa r ti n the i l l i c i ttr a ns a c t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r ow n, 43 F . 3d 618, 622 ( 11th C i r . 1995) . “ [ T he ] j ury ’ s ve r di c tc a nnotbe ove r tur ne d i f a ny r e a s ona bl e c ons truc t i on of the e vi de nc e w oul d a l l ow the j ur y t o f i nd the de f

e nda nt gui l ty be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . ” I d. A c c or di ngl y , “ w e m us tvi e w a l l f a c t s a nd m ake a l l i nfer ence s i n favor of the go vernm ent . ” I d. S ec on d, w e r evi ew e vi de nt i a r y rul i ngs f

ora n a bus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G unn, 369 F . 3d 1229, 1236 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . T hi r d, w e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ng r e ga r di ng the l os s a m ountf orc l e a re r r or , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a t t i , 337 F . 3d 1317, 13 23 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ), and P adron’ s s ent ence for r ea sonabl enes s. G al l v. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 552 U . S . ___, 128 S . C t . 586, 597 ( 2007) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H unt , 459 F . 3d 1180, 1182 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . F i na l l y , w e r e vi e w de novo the l e ga l i ty of the f or f e i tur e m one y j udgm e nte nt e r e d a ga i ns tP a dr on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a s s on, 333 F . 3d 12 64 , 12 75 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ).7 I V. DI S C US S I ON P a dr on f i r s ta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f or j udgm e ntof

a c qui t t a l ba s e d on hi s e ntr a pm e ntde f e ns e . “ A s uc c e s s f

ul e ntr a pm e nt defe nse r equi re s tw o el em ent s: 1) go vernm enti nd ucem entof the cr i m e, and 2 ) l a c k of pr e di s pos i t i on on the pa r tof the de f e nda nt . ” B r ow n, 43 F . 3d a t623. “ T he de f e nda ntbe a r s [ the ] i ni t i a l bur de n of pr oduc t i on t o s how gove r nm e nt i nduc e m e nt . ” I d. T he “ m e r e s ugge s t i on of a c r i m e ori ni t i a t i on of

c ont a c ti s not e n o u g h .” I d . R a th e r , “in d u c e m e n t r e q u ir e s a n e le m e n t o f p e r s u a s io n o rm ild c oe r c i on. ” I d. O nc e the de f e nda ntha s pr oduc e d e vi de nc e of i nduc e m e nt , “ the bur de n s hi f

t s t o the gove r nm e ntt o pr ove be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubttha tthe d e f e n d a n t w a s p r e d is p o s e d to c o m m it th e c r im e .” I d . O u rr e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a te s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e r rin c onc l udi ng tha tP a dr on di d notm e e thi s bur de n of pr ovi di ng s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e of i nduc e m e ntt o s uppor ta j udgm e ntof a c qui t t a l . A l though P a dr on c ont e nds tha the w a s unf a m i l i a rw i th, a nd una w a r e of , the pr a c t i c e of

s t a gi ng a c c i de nt s a nd s ubm i t t i ng f

r a udul e nti ns ur a nc e c l a i m s w he n he a nd C a rus o be ga n ope r a t i ng T B P I C , P a dr on ha s pr ovi de d no e vi de nc e tha the e xpe r i e nc e d a ny de gr e e of c o e r c i o n t o c o mmi tth e f r a u d , a n d a s w e h a v e h e l d , th e “ me r e s u g g e s t i o n o f a c r i me o rin itia tio n o f

c o n ta c t is n o t e n o u g h ” to p r o v e in d u c e m e n t. S e e id .8

T he G ov ernm ent , i n con tra st , has provi ded am pl e e vi dence s up po rt i ng a j ury fi n d i n g th atP ad ro n w as p red i sp o sed t o co m m i tfrau d . C aru so p ro v i d ed th e m o st d am ag i n g ev i d en ce b y t est i fyi n g attri al th atsh e an d P ad ro n h ad “ al w ays di sc usse d” payi ng for pat i ent s bef ore they e ven o pened t he cl i ni c; they di sc usse d po t ent i al pat i ent s bas ed on peop l e s he kn ew fr om the cl i ni c w here she w orked b efo re o p en i n g T B P IC an d p eo p l e h e k n ew fro m th e T am p a H o u si n g A u th o ri ty; they s t aged thei r f

i rs tac ci dentbefore they m etw i th anyon e f rom T ri dent ; they had i nt e nde d t o e nga ge i n unl a w f ul a c t i vi ty pr i ort o m e e t i ng S pe r oune s a nd A ge nt S as s; and t hatthey w er e “ try i ng no tt o g etca ug ht . ” T hi s t es t i m on y i s m ore than suff i ci entevi dence t o sup po rta r ea sonabl e j ury’ s f i nd i ng thatP adron w as p r e d is p o s e d to c o m m it in s u r a n c e f r a u d . T h e r e f

o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e r rin d e n y in g P a d r o n ’s m o tio n f o ra ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l. P adron n extar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y a dm i t t i ng 1) evi dence c onc e r ni ng C a s t i l l o’ s unc ha r ge d s t a ge d a c c i de nton A pr i l 7, 2000; 2) de m a nd l ett er s f rom att orneys concerni ng bo di l y i nj ury c l ai m s s ub m i t t ed t o i nsurance c om pa ni e s on be ha l f

of P a dr on’ s pa t i e nt s ; a nd 3) pol i c e r e por t s c onc e r ni ng the c h a r g e d s ta g e d a c c id e n ts o n J u n e 7 a n d 1 2 , 2 0 0 1 . E a c h o f P a d r o n ’s a r g u m e n ts f

a il. F i rs t , the evi dence re l at ed t o C as t i l l o’ s s t aged acc i denton A pri l 7, 20 00 , w as pr ope r l y a dm i t t e d unde rF e de r a l R ul e of E vi de nc e 404( b) t o s how m ot i ve , pl a n,Padron argues that the Government did not prove that Padron or any of his co- 4 conspirator s had ac tually

hired the attorneys who wrote thedemand letter s. The Government argue s th at th e y

werere le va

nt to s ho w that Padron

wa s a wa rethat la wye rs wereus e d tose ttl e fra ud ulent b odily

inj ur y c laimsand

that th eint e nd e d lo ss inc lude d b odily inj ur y c laims submitt ed by

the lawyers. We agreewith Padron that the attorney letters were not re levant to the mail fraud charg e and should have been excluded. However, wefind that any error wa s harmless. More over, w e re ject Padron’ s argument that the admission of the attorney letters vio late s h is Si xth Amendment rights un der C ra wf ord v . Wa sh ington , 5 41 U. S. 3 6 ( 20 04 ) b e c a us e thele tters areno t te stimonial e vide nc e . Se eUnite d St ate s v . B ro wn , 4 41 F .3 d 1 33 0, 13 59 (1 1th Cir. 2006) (“The Craw ford r ule applies only

to testimoni al evidenc e.”) . Trident would not adva

nce f unding to bodily

injury claimants unless a c opy

of the 5 po lic erepo rt

of theinc ident w a s su

bmi tte d tothem. Thu s, Me llo n s ub mitte d th epo lic erepo rt s re g ardingtheJune7 a

nd June12 , 2 00 1 ac c identsto Tri dent.

9 a nd i nt e nt . T hough the r e w a s a m i nore r r oron the 404( b) not i c e w hi c h l i s t e d the a c c i de nta s oc c ur r i ng on A pr i l 4 r a the rtha n A pr i l 7, P a dr on w a s pr ovi de d w i th the nece ss ary pre tri al di sc ov ery a nd had suffi ci entno t i ce thatthe G ov ernm enti nt ended t o u se thi s e vi dence attri al . M oreover, any pre j ud i ci al ef

fe ctof adm i t t i ng evi dence r e l a t e d t o the A pr i l 7 a c c i de ntw a s c ur e d by the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s l i m i t i ng i nstruct i on s. S ec on d, tho ug h w e a gree w i th P adron t hatthe att orney l ett er s w er e w r o n g ly a d m itte d , P a d r o n h a s n o t d e m o n s tr a te d th a t h e w a s p r e ju d ic e d b y th is error. P adron’ s c on cl usory s t at em entthatthi s e vi dence i nd i ca t ed t o t he j ury that 4 a n y p u rp o r te d c o n s p ir a c y w a s la r g e ra n d m o r e c o m p lic a te d th a n n e c e s s a r y is i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s how pr e

j udi c e . T hi r d, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note r ri n a dm i t t i ng the pol i c e r e por t s tha tM e l l on s ubm i t t e d t o T r i de ntt o s e c ur e the a dva nc e f undi ng f or the ac ci dent s on Jun e 7 and 1 2, 20 01 . T he po l i ce re po rt s w er e nothear sa y 5 b e c a u s e th e y w e r e a d m itte d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t a c o - c o n s p ir a to rw a s s e e k in g to10

se cure advance funding, no tfor the truth o f the m att eras se rt ed w i thi n t he po l i ce re po rt s. T he di stri ctcourtcom m i t t ed no re vers i bl e e rr or i n adm i t t i ng the three chal l enged cat egori es of evi dence. P a dr on a l s o c ont e nds tha tthi s c a s e s houl d be r e m a nde d f orr e s e nt e nc i ng be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our ti m pr ope r l y c a l c ul a t e d the l os s a m ount . I n the c a s e of j oi nt l y und er t aken cri m i nal ac t i vi ty, a def endanti s hel d acc ou nt abl e f or al l cr i m i nal a c t s w hi c h a r e : ( a ) “ i n f ur the r a nc e of

the j oi nt l y unde r t a ke n c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty ; ” a nd ( b ) r e a s o n a b l y f

o r e s e e a b l e i n c o n n e c t i o n wi th th a tc r i m i n a l a c t i v i ty . U. S . S . G. § 1B 1. 3( a ) ( 1) ; s e e a l s o i d. , c m t . 2. I n s e nt e nc i ng P a dr on, w e c a nnots a y tha tthe d i stri ctco u rtcl earl y erred i n h o l d i n g h i m acco u n t ab l e fo r th e fu l l i n t en d ed l o ss am ou ntbeca use i tw as re as on abl y f ores ee abl e that , as a r es ul tof the st aged ac ci dent s und er l yi ng hi s c on spi ra cy char ge, the “ pat i ent s” w ou l d see k t re atm entat o th e rc lin ic s a n d d e m a n d le tte r s w o u ld b e s u b m itte d b y p e r s o n a l in ju r y a tto r n e y s . W e a ls o f

in d n o e r r o rin th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c o n c lu s io n th a t P a d r o n s h o u ld b e h e ld l i a bl e f orthe f ul l a m ountT B P I C bi l l e d t o the i ns ur a nc e c om pa ni e s , i r r e s pe c t i ve of de duc t i bl e s a nd pol i c y l i m i t s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r a nt , 431 F . 3d 760, 765 n. 6 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( w here a def endantatt em pt s t o cas h a st ol en check, the di stri ct c our tm a y c a l c ul a t e the i nt e nde d l os s a s the f ul l va l ue of

the c he c k, r e ga r dl e s s of the fa ctthatthe ac coun tcont ai ned l es s than t he check’ s f ul l val ue).11

F in a lly , P a d r o n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t la c k e d s ta tu to r y a u th o r ity to ent era f orfe i ture m on ey j ud gm enti n t hi s c as e. T hi s C i rc ui thas notye tconsi dere d w h e th e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 6 1 ( c ) a u th o r iz e s c r im in a l f o r f e itu r e o f s p e c if ie d p r o p e r ty in general m ai l fr aud cas es , bu tnu m er ou s other c ou rt s, i ncl ud i ng se vera l of ou r s i st er c i r c ui t s , ha ve he l d tha ti tdoe s . S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i s l a - A l da r ondo, 478 F . 3d 52 (1stC i r. 20 07 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. V am pi re N at i on , 45 1 F . 3d 18 9 (3d C i r. 20 06 ); and U ni t ed S t at es v. B aker , 22 7 F . 3d 95 5 (7t h C i r. 20 00 ). W e a gree . C ongr e s s e na c t e d 28 U . S . C . § 2461( c ) , e f f e c t i ve A ugus t23, 2000, t o m a ke cr i m i nal forf

ei ture a vai l abl e i n every ca se thatthe cr i m i nal forf ei ture s t atut e does notr e a c h butf

orw hi c h c i vi l f

or f e i tur e i s l e ga l l y a uthor i z e d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E d e lk in d , 4 6 7 F .3 d 7 9 1 , 7 9 8

– 8 0 0 ( 1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T h e c iv il f o r f e itu r e s ta tu te appl i cabl e i n t hi s c as e i s 18 U . S . C . § 9 81 w hi ch perm i t s the go vernm entt o see k ci vi l forf ei ture of “ [a ] ny prop er ty, re al or pers on al , w hi ch const i tut es or i s der i ved fr om proceeds tra ce abl e t o a vi ol at i on of . . . any off ense const i tut i ng ‘ spec i fi ed u n l a w f u l a c t i v i ty ’ ( a s d e f

i n e d i n s e c t i o n 1 9 5 6 ( c ) ( 7 ) o f th i s t i t l e ) . ” 1 8 U . S. C. § 981( a ) ( 1) ( C ) . G e ne r a l m a i l f r a ud i s i nc l ude d i n § 1956( c ) ( 7) ’ s de f i ni t i on of

“ spec i fi ed un l aw ful ac t i vi ty. ” 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 6(c) (7). T hu s, si nce c i vi l forf ei ture i s l egal l y aut ho ri ze d b y 18 U . S . C . § 9 81 (a )( 1)(C ), 28 U . S . C . § 2 46 1(c) m akesPa dron a lso argue s th at be c a

us ec ivi l f orfe itureproc e dure s a

rea g ains t sp e c if

icprop e rt y 6 in rem, money

judgments are not a

vailable in the c ivil forfeiturecontext. This argument misses thepo int be c a us e28 U. S.C. § 2 46 1( c ) m ake s c rimin a l re me die s availa blein t hec ivi l c onte xt, and Padron c oncede s that criminal forf eiture procee dings a

re in personam. See United States v. Conner, 75 2 F .2 d 5 66 , 5 76 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 5) (u

ph oldingfo rf

e ituremon e y

judgment in th eRI CO context on the ground that beca use criminal forfe itures are in per sonam, the g overnment need not tracethe forf

eited property

to the underly

ing of fense ). 12 c r im in a l f

o r f e itu r e a v a ila b le f

o rg e n e r a l m a il f

r a u d a s w e ll. 6 P a dr on a r gue s tha tbe c a us e the f or f e i tur e s t a tut e s a ppl i c a bl e i n thi s c a s e do notc ont a i n pr ovi s i ons e xpr e s s l y a uthor i z i ng the e ntr y of f or f e i tur e of m on ey j ud gm ent s, the di stri ctcourtexce eded hi s s t atut ory aut ho ri ty. Iti s c l ea r, how e ve r , tha t28 U . S . C . § 2461( c ) a uthor i z e s the gove r nm e ntt o s e e k f or f e i tur e of s p e c if ie d p r o p e r ty “in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e ” a n d it i s e qu al l y c l ea r thatthe fe dera l rul es expl i ci t l y c on t em pl at e the entry of m on ey j udgm e nt s i n c r i m i na l f or f e i tur e c a s e s . S e e F e d. R . C r i m . P . 32. 2. T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note r ri n e nt e r i ng a f or f e i tur e m one y j udgm e nta ga i ns tP a dr on. AF F I RME D.