Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vera Lee PEACOCK, Hoyle Lamont Peacock, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1982-09-24
Citations: 686 F.2d 356
Docket Number: No. 80-7087
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vera Lee PEACOCK, Hoyle Lamont Peacock, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before RONEY, HILL and FAY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 686
Pages: 356–356

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vera Lee PEACOCK, Hoyle Lamont Peacock, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 80-7087.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Unit B
Sept. 24, 1982.
John C. Swearingen, Jr., Columbus, Ga., for Harvey Peacock.
T. M. Flournoy, Jr., Columbus, Ga., for Vera Lee Peacock and Hoyle Lamont Peacock.
Edgar W. Ennis, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for United States.
ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING
Before RONEY, HILL and FAY, Circuit Judges.
Former Fifth Circuit Case, Section 9(3) of Pub-lie Law 96-452 — October 14, 1980.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
IT IS ORDERED that the government's petition for rehearing is GRANTED.
Part V of our opinion dealt with the forfeiture of insurance proceeds acquired by the appellants. Bound at the time by the decision in United States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1981), we held that 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a) did not authorize the forfeiture of the profits of a RICO offense and reversed the district court's forfeiture order. 654 F.2d 339 at 351-52.
After our opinion issued, the Former Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted rehearing en banc as to the portion of Martino that dealt with forfeiture. The court held that § 1963(a) does encompass "forfeiture of the income or proceeds of racketeering activity." United States v. Martino, 681 F.2d 952, 961 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc).
Accordingly, upon our reconsideration, so much of Part V of our opinion as dealt with the scope of section 1963(a) is vacated. The district court's forfeiture order is affirmed for the reasons stated in the Fifth Circuit's en banc opinion in Martino. In all other respects, the panel adheres to the opinion previously issued, and appellants' petition for rehearing is DENIED.