Whether the Government's pretrial criminal forfeiture and seizure of petitioner's untainted substitute assets under 853 has been invalidated based on Honeycutt v. United States and whether this pretrial seizure violated the petitioner's Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to counsel of choice free of conflict in light of Luis v. United States

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . I. This court has previously addressed the constitutionality of pretrial restraints and seizures of untainted substitute assets, holding that the untainted assets may not be seized and forfeited without violating the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This court has also held that the pretrial restraint of untainted substitute assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Sixth Amendment. This case presents the same issue: Whether the Government's pretrial criminal forfeiture and seizure of petitioner's untainted substitute assets under 853, has ; subsequently been invalidated based off this court's previous ; ‘ : decision in light of Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1626 (2017), and whether this pretrial seizure of Petitioner's untainted substitute assets violated his Fifth,. Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel of choice free of conflict in light of Luis v. United States, 136° S.Ct. 1089 (2016). , 5 i rn