Whether the 'deprivation of livelihood' should be included in the proportionality analysis when determining whether a forfeiture meets the constitutionality requirements of the Eighth Amendment's ban on Excessive Fines

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | I. Whether this Court should resolve the conflict between the fi circuits regarding whether the ‘deprivation of livelihood' , should be included in the proportionality analysis when determining whether a forfeiture meets the constitutionality requirements of the Eighth Amendment's ban on Excessive . Fines? II. Whether the proportionality analysis under the Excessive Fines clause should include a ‘fact specific' evaluation -of the circumstances of a criminal act to include the factors of: 1) Negligence, 2) Recklessness, 3) Knowledge, 4) Intent, and 5) Maliciousness, to determine the extent : of the defendant's level of participation, knowledge of the crime, and his degree of culpability to ensure the . amount of forfeiture bears a relationship to the criminal activity? . III. Whether the amount of forfeiture ordered in a financial structuring offense should be proportional to the ratio of legitimate funds structured, as compared to the amount of : funds tainted by other criminal act(s), that resulted in minimal, or no, illegal gain, to meet the constitutional : requirements of the Eighth Amendment? Iv. Whether the proportionality analysis under the Excessive Fines Clause should require a relationship between: 1) the ratio of the sentence imposed, as compared to the upper limit of either the Guideline recommendation, or the applicable Statute; and 2) the amount of forfeiture or-dered as compared to the amount of funds structured? 4 . | . ; q | : . 7 oe