__ U.S. __, 19-16, Peithman v. United States

Docket Nº:19-16
Citation:__ U.S. __, 140 S.Ct. 340
Party Name:Allen E. PEITHMAN, Jr., et al. v. UNITED STATES
Judge Panel:Justice SOTOMAYOR, dissenting from denial of certiorari.
Case Date:November 18, 2019
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page __

__ U.S. __

140 S.Ct. 340

Allen E. PEITHMAN, Jr., et al.

v.

UNITED STATES

No. 19-16

United States Supreme Court

November 18, 2019

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

OPINION

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice SOTOMAYOR, dissenting from denial of certiorari.

In Honeycutt v. United States, 581 U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 1626, 198 L.Ed.2d 73 (2017), this Court held that joint-and-several liability is not permitted under 98 Stat. 2045, 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1), which mandates forfeiture of "property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of " certain drug crimes. 581 U.S. at __, 137 S.Ct., at 1630. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has since held that the reasoning of Honeycutt "appl[ies] with equal force" to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), which is worded almost identically to 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1). United States v. Gjeli, 867 F.3d 418, 428 (2017).

In this case, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reached a contrary conclusion. 917 F.3d 635, 652-653 (2019). It upheld a joint-and-several forfeiture order against petitioners under § 981(a)(1)(C), reasoning that Honeycutt does not apply to that provision. See 917 F.3d at 652-653. The Government now concedes error. According to the Government, there is no "distinguishing 18 U.S.C. 981 from 21 U.S.C. 853 for purposes of joint and several liability." Brief in Opposition 6; see also id., at 10 ("[T]he government has agreed that Honeycutts...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP