No. 24-6226

Andres Fernando Cabezas v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2025-01-02
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: bitcoin digital-property due-process fifth-amendment forfeiture procedural-standards
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment
Latest Conference: 2025-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause require explicit notice and adjudication for the forfeiture of intangible digital property, such as Bitcoin, when the property is not expressly included in the forfeiture order?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

1. Due Process and Digital Property: Does the Fifth Amendment ’s Due Process Clause require explicit notice and adjudication for the forfeiture of intangible digital property, such as Bitcoin, when the property is not expressly included in the forfeiture order? 2. Nexus, Proportionality, and Procedural Standards: Does the government ’s failure to investigate and prove a nexus between intangible digital property and the alleged offense, coupled with the inadequacy of Rule 41(g) to address intangible property, violate due process and create risks of excessive or disproportionate punishment?

Docket Entries

2025-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-01-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025.
2025-01-13
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-01-13
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-12-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 3, 2025)
2024-12-05
Application (24A554) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until January 2, 2025.
2024-11-18
Application (24A554) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 3, 2024 to February 1, 2025, submitted to Justice Thomas.

Attorneys

Andres F. Cabezas
Andres Fernando Cabezas — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent