Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shirley COLLETTI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-18
Citations: 483 F. App'x 320
Docket Number: No. 09-10279
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shirley COLLETTI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 483
Pages: 320–321

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shirley COLLETTI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10279.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 19, 2012.
Filed May 18, 2012.
Gregory William Addington, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USRE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, Daniel D. Hollings-worth, Esquire, USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Shirley Colletti, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shirley Colletti was convicted in 1999 for wire fraud and RICO offenses in connection with a scheme to hide taxable income from a Nevada brothel. In 2001, a $220,000 forfeiture order was entered against her for those crimes. In 2008, the district court allowed the government to substitute Colletti's newly acquired money in satisfaction of the forfeiture. Colletti appeals that substitution, and we affirm.
The government diligently asserted its rights, filing its motion to substitute within two years after Colletti's acquisition of the money. The government was not guilty of laches. See Huseman v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 471 F.3d 1116, 1126 (9th Cir .2006).
Colletti also argues that the substitution of her newly acquired money unconstitutionally deprives her of her livelihood in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The authority on which she relies, United States v. Levesque, 546 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2008), involved the amount of the original forfeiture order. Colletti offers no authority to support her position that a change of circumstances can affect the constitutional validity of a forfeiture that was not excessive at the time it was ordered. Assuming it could, however, the district court provided adequate protection by ensuring that the substitution order did not touch her social security or pension.
The order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.