UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4055

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ASTON EARL MCCREA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:11-cr-00089-SGW-RSB-1)

Submitted: September 30, 2014 Decided: October 10, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Krysia Carmel Nelson, LAW OFFICES OF KRYSIA CARMEL NELSON, PLC, 

Keswick, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United 

States Attorney, Daniel P. Bubar, Kartic Padmanabhan, Assistant 

United States Attorneys, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Aston Earl McCrea appeals from an amended order of 

forfeiture. In its amended order, the district court noted 

that, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(e) and 21 U.S.C. 

§ 853(p) (2012), the Government sought to include McCrea’s 

residence as substitute property. The court found that, because 

of the acts or omissions of the defendant, the proceeds of the 

offenses were no longer available for forfeiture for one or more 

reasons set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 853(p). McCrea appeals asking 

whether the Government can satisfy a money judgment by seizing a 

residence through resort to the substitute asset provisions of 

21 U.S.C. § 853(p). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

In an appeal from a criminal forfeiture proceeding, we 

review a district court’s findings of fact for clear error and 

its legal interpretations de novo. United States v. Martin, 662 

F.3d 301, 306 (4th Cir. 2011). Forfeiture of substitute assets 

is appropriate where the defendant does not have the money to 

pay the forfeiture money judgment. See United States v. Oregon, 

671 F.3d 484, 489 (4th Cir. 2012) (noting that the defendant 

“did not possess sufficient funds to cover the money judgment 

and, accordingly, the district court, in its preliminary order 

of forfeiture, ordered forfeiture of substitute assets pursuant 

to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p)”). Further, the criminal forfeiture 

statute allows for forfeiture of “‘any other property of the 
3

defendant’” as substitute property when conspiracy proceeds 

cannot be located. United States v. McHan, 345 F.3d 262, 271 

(4th Cir. 2003) (quoting § 853(p)). Section 853(p) is not 

discretionary; rather, the statute mandates forfeiture of 

substitute assets when the tainted property has been placed 

beyond the reach of a forfeiture. Id. at 271. It was 

uncontested that McCrea did not have the proceeds generated from 

his drug conspiracy and money laundering violations available to 

satisfy the $76,062.63 money judgment remaining from the 

forfeiture order. Thus, the district court granted the 

Government’s motion to substitute McCrea’s residence under Rule 

32.2(e) and § 853(p). 

We have reviewed the parties’ arguments in conjunction 

with the relevant record and authorities, and we find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the amended 

forfeiture order. We dispense with oral argument as the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED