Opinion ID: 563814
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Puma's Objections to his Sentence

Text: 14 Puma raises five objections to his sentence. First, he urges that the trial court violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D). Second, Puma claims that it was based on inaccurate information. Third, Puma argues that the disparity between his sentence and the sentence of his co-conspirators, especially Payne's sentence violates the spirit of the sentencing guidelines. Fourth, Puma argues that the trial court ordered forfeiture in violation of Fed.R.Crim. 7(c), (e) and 31(e). Finally, Puma alleges that there is insufficient evidence to support forfeiture of certain automobiles.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D) provides that: 15 If the comments of the defendant and the defendant's counsel or testimony or other information introduced by them allege any factual inaccuracy in the presentence report or the summary of the report or part thereof, the court shall, as to each matter controverted, make (i) a finding as to the allegation, or (ii) a determination that no such finding is necessary because the matter controverted will not be taken into account in sentencing. A written record of such findings and determinations shall be appended to and accompany any copy of the presentence report thereafter made available to the Bureau of Prisons. 16 Puma contends that the trial court's failure to make written findings rejecting Puma's challenges to the pre-sentence report, is reversible error. This contention is meritless. The trial court's express rejection of Puma's challenges to the pre-sentence report appears in the record. This oral finding satisfies 32(c)(3)(D)'s requirement that the trial court make a finding as to the allegation raised by Puma. United States v. Burch, 873 F.2d 765, 768 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Lawal, 810 F.2d 491, 493 n. 2 (5th Cir.1987). Puma's only objection must be that this ruling was not attached in writing to the pre-sentence report that was sent to the Bureau of Prisons. If so, the record does not show any prejudice for any such omission. 17
18 Puma's second contention, that his sentence was based on inaccurate information, is similarly meritless. The trial court expressly considered and rejected Puma's objections to the pre-sentence report. Puma alleges only one specific example of reliance on erroneous facts. He argues that the trial court should not have relied on the pre-sentence report because the report refers to acts committed before the charged conduct. A sentencing court, however, may consider for sentencing purposes facts that were not alleged in the indictment. United States v. Sarasti, 869 F.2d 805, 806 (5th Cir.1989). The trial court in this case was well within its discretion in making the factual findings challenged by Puma. 19
20 Puma's third objection to his sentence, raised by Nichols and Dodd as well, is that the disparity between his sentence and the sentence of his co-conspirator Payne, rendered his sentence defective under the spirit of the Sentencing Guidelines. Puma's, Dodd's, and Nichols' own sentences fall within the range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines. The fact that another party received a lower sentence than Puma does not alone make Puma's otherwise legal sentence a violation of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Pierce, 893 F.2d 669, 678 (5th Cir.1990).
21 Finally, Puma raises three objections to the forfeiture of property ordered by the trial court. First, he argues that the indictment failed to advise him of the precise extent of the forfeiture sought by the government, in violation of both Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(2) and Fed.R.Crim.P. 31(e). Second, he argues that the jury's special verdict regarding the Diamond Oaks Motor Company inadequately specified the property that had been forfeited, in violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 31(e). Third, Puma objects that there was insufficient evidence to support the forfeiture of certain automobiles listed in the amended order of forfeiture granted to the government by the trial court. 22
23 Puma did not raise with the district court his present objection to the indictment's specification of property subject to forfeiture. We therefore ask only whether the indictment states the essential elements of an offense. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(2). As we noted in United States v. Cauble, 706 F.2d 1322, 1347 (5th Cir.1983) (en banc), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1005, 104 S.Ct. 996, 79 L.Ed.2d 229 (1984), [t]he purpose of the notice of forfeiture in the indictment is to inform the defendant that the government seeks forfeiture as a remedy. The designation of property subject to forfeiture is sufficiently specific if it puts the defendant on notice that the government seeks forfeiture and identifies the assets with sufficient specificity to permit the defendant to marshal evidence in their defense. Id. 24 In this case, count 2 of the indictment states that the government sought forfeiture of the Diamond Oaks Motor Company, 4249 Denton Highway, Haltom City, Texas and $5,030.00 in U.S. currency. This description of Puma's car lot business is amply sufficient to notify Puma that the government sought forfeiture of all of the company's assets. Cauble, 706 F.2d at 1347; United States v. Boffa, 688 F.2d 919, 939 (3d Cir.1982) (by alleging that all of the appellants' interest in the enumerated corporations was subject to forfeiture, the indictment alleged the 'extent of the interest or property subject to forfeiture'  required by Rule 7(c)(2)), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1022, 103 S.Ct. 1272, 75 L.Ed.2d 494 (1983). Moreover, count 3 of the indictment alleges precisely how the government intended to link the Diamond Oaks Motor Company both to money-laundering and to the proceeds of unlawful activity. 25 The indictment as a whole described the property and how it was illegally used. This was more than sufficient to allow Puma to marshall any defense. United States v. Peacock, 654 F.2d 339, 351 (5th Cir.1981) (specificity of forfeited property's description in indictment should be judged from indictment as whole), modified, 686 F.2d 356 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 965, 104 S.Ct. 404, 78 L.Ed.2d 344 (1982). It therefore violated neither Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(2) nor Fed.R.Crim.P. 31(e). 26
27 We also reject Puma's challenge to the jury's special verdict. The jury found that the Diamond Oaks Motor Company had been used to control, and had been purchased by the proceeds of, a continuing criminal conspiracy. This finding identifies with sufficient specificity the asset subject to forfeiture. The jury is under no obligation to select only certain of that entities' assets for forfeiture...., Cauble, 706 F.2d at 1349. See also United States v. Tunnell, 667 F.2d 1182, 1188 (5th Cir.1982) (jury's special verdict need not identify which rooms of hotel were used in criminal enterprise for whole hotel to be forfeited). If any part of the motor company was purchased by, or used to control, the proceeds of a continuing criminal conspiracy, then it is readily apparent that the entire property was subject to forfeiture, United States v. Possick, 849 F.2d 332, 341 (8th Cir.1988). The jury's special verdict, therefore, complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 31(e)'s requirement that the verdict identify the extent of the interest or property subject to forfeiture. 28
29 in Order of Forfeiture 30 Puma's last contention is that there was insufficient evidence to support the order of forfeiture of numerous automobiles and equipment. Puma argues that there was evidence that the vehicles were legitimately and legally bought without involvement of the proceeds of a criminal enterprise; they should not be forfeited because they do not fall[ ] within the special verdict forfeiting 'Diamond Oaks Motor Company'. 31 There was ample evidence presented to the jury that the Diamond Oaks Motor Company was both derived from the proceeds of a criminal enterprise and afforded Puma control over a criminal enterprise. This evidence included physical evidence and testimony that the business was used to store amphetamine; testimony that the business was intended by Puma to be a front for amphetamine trafficking; and evidence that Puma's legitimate income was not large enough to cover the cost of purchasing the business. 32 Puma seems to be arguing that individual items belonging to the company were not involved in a criminal enterprise and that, therefore, those assets should not be forfeited. This is not the law. If the motor company was forfeitable, then all the individual assets of the company were also forfeitable, without any proof that each individual asset had been used in, or purchased by the proceeds of, a criminal enterprise. Cauble, 706 F.2d at 1349. See also Tunnell, 667 F.2d at 1188 (jury's special verdict need not identify which rooms of hotel were used in criminal enterprise for whole hotel to be forfeit); Possick, 849 F.2d at 341.