Opinion ID: 3090871
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Forfeiture (Shafer)

Text: Shafer last argues that the amount of forfeiture must be submitted to a jury. The Supreme Court has held that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial on forfeiture. Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 49 (1995). Since Libretti, Apprendi held that any fact that increases the statutory maximum for an offense must be found by a jury. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). In 2012, the Supreme Court held that Apprendi applies to criminal fines, such that any fact that increases a defendant’s maximum fine must be found by a jury. S. Union Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344, 2350 (2012). Shafer argues that, like fines in Southern Union Co, any fact that increases the amount of forfeiture must be found by a jury. The only circuit to have addressed this argument after Southern Union Co. rejected it. See United States v. Phillips, 704 F.3d 754, 769-770 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2796 (2013). As the Ninth Circuit explained: Although criminal forfeiture undoubtedly constitutes an element of punishment, see Libretti, 516 U.S. at 39, there is no statutory (or guideline) maximum limit on forfeitures. Rather, criminal forfeitures are indeterminate and open-ended, and may include all property “constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly,” from his unlawful conduct. 21 U.S.C. § 853(a). The Second, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits have all explicitly distinguished Booker and denied the right to a jury determination in the forfeiture context because forfeiture is not a “determinate sentencing scheme” with a “statutory maximum.” Id. at 770. We agree with this reasoning. The amount of forfeiture is statutorily defined as any property traceable to gross proceeds of the wire or mail fraud offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(D). By statute, the court “shall order” the forfeiture of the property as part of the sentence if the defendant is 26 Case: 12-10574 Document: 00512501580 Page: 27 Date Filed: 01/15/2014 No. 12-10574 found guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). Judicial fact-finding during sentencing does not increase any statutory maximum. See Phillips, 704 F.3d at 770-71; see also United States v. Gasanova, 332 F.3d 297, 301 & n.14 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding that Apprendi did not alter the preponderance of the evidence standard for forfeiture). We thus reject Shafer’s argument that the amount of forfeiture must be submitted to the jury.