Opinion ID: 6500514
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post-Honeycutt: John Maxwell

Text: We begin with John Maxwell, who was the Chief Executive Officer and a board member of FirstPlus, albeit in title only. He was installed in those roles by Pelullo and William Maxwell. No one could fairly describe John Maxwell as a “mastermind” of the conspiracy, cf. Honeycutt, 137 S. Ct. at 1633 (describing, as an example of someone who could be held jointly and severally liable, a drug dealer “mastermind” who obtained all the proceeds of a drug distribution scheme), and our analysis can begin and end with the government’s concession of plain error and acknowledgement that John’s role in the conspiracy was “akin to the manager of the hardware store in Honeycutt[.]” (Answering Br. at 278.) We understand the government to be agreeing to a remand of John Maxwell’s case so that the forfeiture order against him can be modified to allow liability only for the portion of proceeds he actually obtained. We accept that concession and will remand for further proceedings.96 On remand, the District Court should 95 We do not decide today whether Honeycutt also applies to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1), the third basis cited for the forfeiture orders. 96 As noted, United States v. Gjeli extended the holding of Honeycutt – where the relevant forfeiture provision applied to proceeds “obtained … as the result of” an offense – to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), which permits forfeiture of proceeds 141 calculate how much John “himself actually acquired” due to his involvement in the schemes. Honeycutt, 137 S. Ct. at 1635.