United States v. Valdez
- Case No.: 17-10446
- Jurisdiction: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
- Brief Filed: April 15, 2019
Briefs
Prior Decision
Panel decision 911 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2018)
Argument(s)
The panel’s decision is inconsistent with background principles of forfeiture, congressional intent, Supreme Court precedent, and constitutional limitations. Neither Section 924(D) nor Section 853(P) permits entry of a money judgment as “substitute property” subject to forfeiture
Author(s)
Joshua M. Koppel and Anuradha Sivaram. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC; Sharon Cohen Levin, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY.
