Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190426_0001535.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-15 01:40:08
Document Index: 38895107

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 922', '§ 853', '§ 924', '§ 922', '§ 924']

FindACase™ | United States v. Dye
Marelle Dye, Defendant.
MATTHEW SCHNEIDER United States Attorney, Adriana Dydell, Assistant United States Attorney.
Charles Grossmann, Attorney for Defendant, Marelle Dye Defendant.
The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, Matthew Schneider, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, and Adriana Dydell, Assistant United States Attorney, together with Defendant Marelle Dye (“Defendant”), individually and by and through his attorney, Charles Grossmann, submit this Stipulated Preliminary Order of Forfeiture to the Court and stipulate and agree to the following:
1. The United States of America (the “United States”) obtained a felony Indictment on or around December 19, 2018, which charged Defendant with Counts One through Eight, Distribution of Cocaine Base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), Count Nine, Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and Count Ten, Felon in Possession of Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (ECF No. 10). The Indictment contains forfeiture allegations under 21 U.S.C. § 853 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(d). Specifically, the United States identified a Ruger Model 9E 9mm semi-automatic handgun bearing serial number 33731985 and Kel-Tec Model Sub 2000 9mm semiautomatic assault rifle bearing serial number EW561.
2. On or about April 25, 2019, Defendant pleaded guilty to Counts Nine and Ten of the Indictment.
3. In his Rule 11 Plea Agreement (“Rule 11”), Defendant agreed to forfeit the following firearms as property involved in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d).
1. Ruger, Model 9E, 9mm, semiautomatic handgun, serial number 33731985, and
2. Kel-Tec, Model Sub 2000, 9mm, semiautomatic assault rifle, serial number EW561.
4. In the Rule 11, Defendant agreed to the entry of one or more orders of forfeiture of the Subject Property.
5. In the Rule 11, Defendant acknowledged his understanding that forfeiture is part of the sentence that may be imposed on him in this case and waived his right to challenge any failure by the court to advise him of this pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(J). Defendant also expressly waived his right to have a jury determine the forfeitability of his interest in the Subject Property under Rule 32.2(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
6. In his Rule 11, Defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived any challenge to the forfeiture of the Subject Property based on the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.
7. Defendant agrees that this order shall be final as to his interest in the Subject Property at entry. Defendant further waives the requirements of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.2 and 43(a) regarding notice of forfeiture in the charging instrument, ...