Opinion ID: 781507
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pro Tanto Credit

Text: 52 Defendants-appellants argue that the district court erred by denying their request for pro tanto credit against all funds the government has already collected from their jointly and severally liable co-conspirators. Prior to the trial, defendants-appellants' co-conspirators pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Pursuant to their respective plea agreements, the co-conspirators stipulated that the gross proceeds of the conspiracy amounted to $2,000,000 and that they would be jointly and severally liable for this amount. However, the jury concluded that the gross proceeds [that] the defendants and their co-defendants and co-conspirators, collectively, obtained as a result of their narcotics violations [was] $400,000. Defendants-appellants sought an agreement from the government that any proceeds already collected from their co-conspirators would be credited, pro tanto, against their forfeiture liability. The government maintained that it would not begin to credit the proceeds collected towards defendants-appellants' $400,000 liability until it had collected $1,600,000 from their co-conspirators. The district court held that the Government is under no obligation to credit any monies received thus far from co-conspirators — presuming those monies total less than $1.6 million — toward the forfeiture amount owed by the Paneks. 53 We find that this issue is not ripe for review. The ripeness doctrine's basic rationale is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements. Gary D. Peake Excavating Inc. v. Town Bd. of the Town of Hancock, 93 F.3d 68, 72 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967)). In determining whether a claim is ripe for review, we consider the fitness of the issues for review and the hardship to the parties of withholding review. Id. (citing Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507). 54 Defendants-appellants' claims are not fit for judicial resolution at this time because the government has not collected more than $400,000 from defendants-appellants and their co-conspirators. See United States v. Wilson, 244 F.3d 1208, 1213-14 (10th Cir.2001) (holding that forfeiture order is not ripe for review until government seeks to enforce it in alleged violation of the defendant's rights). The government represents that it has collected only $176,274.28 from William Henry. While it is unclear whether the government has seized any of defendants-appellants' assets in partial satisfaction of their liability, the government also represents that the total forfeitures in this case do not exceed $400,000. Thus, even were Henry's forfeitures credited against defendants-appellants' liability of $400,000, the government could still collect from defendants-appellants $223,725.72 minus the value of the assets, if any, they already have forfeited. For this reason, we also find that defendants-appellants would suffer no hardship by withholding review of this issue at this time. Accordingly, defendants-appellants have no justiciable claims unless and until the government attempts to seize assets from them that would place the total forfeiture amount in this case over $400,000. 8 55