No. 19-6062

Priscilla Daydee Valdez v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-09-25
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (3)IFP
Tags: 18-usc-924 18-usc-924d 21-usc-853 28-usc-2461 28-usc-2461c ammunition civil-forfeiture criminal-forfeiture firearms firearms-offense procedural-law statutory-interpretation substitute-assets
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Securities Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-03-27 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

May a defendant be required to forfeit substitute property in lieu of the firearms and ammunition subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Criminal forfeiture statutes must be strictly construed in light of the “background principles” of forfeiture. Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626, 1634-35 & n.2 (2017). A penalty provision for federal firearms and ammunition offenses, 18 U.S.C. § 924(d), authorizes civil forfeiture of “only those firearms or quantities of ammunition” involved in a firearm/ammunition exportation offense. A bridging statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), provides that, if “civil .. . forfeiture of property is authorized” by a criminal statute and the “defendant is convicted of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture, the court shall order the forfeiture of the property as part of” the defendant’s sentence, applying “the procedures” of 21 U.S.C. § 853, with the exception of § 853(d). Under 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), a subsection of a criminal forfeiture statute, the court shall order forfeiture of “any other property of the defendant” if “any property described in” § 853(a)—namely, “proceeds” the “person obtained” as a result of the violation or “any of the person’s property” used to commit or facilitate the violation—is rendered unavailable by the defendant. In a split with the Third and Fourth Circuits, the Ninth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) and 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) allow the forfeiture of substitute assets of a defendant even when the items subject to civil forfeiture under the authorizing statute are not encompassed by § 853(a). The questions presented are: (1) May a defendant be required to forfeit substitute property in lieu of the firearms and ammunition subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)? (2) If the substitute-asset provision of 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) is applied to a forfeiture imposed under any statute via 28 U.S.C. § 2461, must the limitations of 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)—which are explicitly incorporated by § 853(p)—be applied as well? In other words, if substitute-asset forfeiture is imposed via 28 U.S.C. § 2461(0), is it limited to situations in which a defendant transfers or conceals her own property? i PARTIES AND PROCEEDINGS All

Docket Entries

2020-03-30
Petition DENIED.
2020-03-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/27/2020.
2020-03-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.
2020-02-28
Reply of petitioner Priscilla Daydee Valdez filed.
2020-02-14
Brief of respondent United Staes of America in opposition filed.
2020-01-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 14, 2020.
2020-01-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 15, 2020 to February 14, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-12-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 15, 2020.
2019-12-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 16, 2019 to January 15, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-11-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 16, 2019.
2019-11-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 15, 2019 to December 16, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-10-16
Response Requested. (Due November 15, 2019)
2019-10-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2019.
2019-10-02
Waiver of right of respondent United Staes of America to respond filed.
2019-09-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 25, 2019)
2019-08-31
Application (19A13) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until September 23, 2019.
2019-08-28
Application (19A13) to extend further the time from September 12, 2019 to September 23, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.
2019-07-01
Application (19A13) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until September 12, 2019.
2019-06-26
Application (19A13) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 28, 2019 to September 12, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

Priscilla Daydee Valdez
Mary Edith CunninghamFederal Public Defenders Office, Petitioner
Mary Edith CunninghamFederal Public Defenders Office, Petitioner
United Staes of America
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent