U.S. v. Borromeo, 91-7070
| Decision Date | 07 September 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-7070,91-7070 |
| Citation | 1 F.3d 219 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Abel Parama BORROMEO, Defendant-Appellant. and Seven (7) Parcels of Real Property; Two (2) Automobiles; Undetermined Amount of United States Currency Contained In Several Bank Accounts, Stocks, Bonds, Securities and Other Negotiable Instruments and Various Items of Personal Property, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Stanley K. Joynes, III, LeClair, Ryan & Joynes, Richmond, VA, for defendant-appellant.
Betty Adkins Pullin, Asst. U.S. Atty., Charleston, WV, (Michael W. Carey, U.S. Atty., Stephen M. Horn, Asst. U.S. Atty., on brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HAMILTON, Circuit Judge, SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge, and KAUFMAN, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
On May 26, 1993, this Court filed an opinion in this case. 995 F.2d 23. Thereafter, Borromeo, noting the pendency of a Supreme Court decision on a related topic, moved for an extension of time within which to seek a rehearing or rehearing in banc and a stay of the issuance of the mandate. On June 23, 1993, we granted that motion, extending the time within which the parties might seek rehearing until thirty days after the Supreme Court decided the case of Austin v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1036, 122 L.Ed.2d 347 (1993), and recalled our mandate in this case, which had issued in the interim. Subsequently, on June 28, 1993, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Austin v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993), and Borromeo moved for a rehearing of this case.
Borromeo contends that Austin mandates a result different from that reached by this Court in part III of our earlier opinion with regard to Borromeo's Double Jeopardy claim. Further, Borromeo takes the position that we misunderstood his apparent concession, during oral argument, of the appropriateness of the forfeiture of the building which housed the Jefferson Family Health Clinic. He now claims that he did not intend to concede that the district court had sufficient evidence before it from which it could have permissibly concluded that the building in question was in fact an instrumentality of Borromeo's crime. Rather, Borromeo contends that he conceded only the forfeitability of an instrumentality, as a general proposition, but did not concede the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the building as an instrumentality.
The government, for its part, agrees that Austin "is a change in the controlling law with respect to forfeitures," but apparently does not agree with Borromeo's conclusion that it necessarily vitiates Part III of our prior opinion. With respect to Borromeo's seeming concession, the government asserts that Borromeo did in fact concede, during oral argument, the sufficiency of the evidence before the district court.
As an initial matter, our review of the recorded oral argument reveals that while Borromeo's concession of the appropriateness of the forfeiture of the building housing the Jefferson Family Health Center was certainly not as carefully circumscribed as he would have this Court interpret it to be, it may perhaps be possible to characterize it as less than a fully clear concession. However, even if Borromeo did not concede the sufficiency of the evidence, we would have concluded from the record before the trial court in the forfeiture proceeding that the building was a forfeitable instrumentality. Indeed, we continue so to conclude. The transcript of Borromeo's criminal trial is replete with testimony concerning the use of the accused building to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. 9844 South Titan Court, Unit 9, Littleton, Colo., 2001772
...under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1) not to be punishment). But see $405,089.23 United States Currency, 33 F.3d at 1220; United States v. Borromeo, 1 F.3d 219, 221 (4th Cir.1993) (remanding a § 881(a)(6) drug proceeds case to determine whether the Excessive Fines Clause had been violated). We ultima......
-
Aravanis v. Somerset County
...and the amount needed to effectuate the legitimate remedial purposes of the forfeiture would seem to be in order." United States v. Borromeo, 1 F.3d 219, 221 (4th Cir.1993). That inquiry, as U.S. v. Chandler, 36 F.3d 358 (4th Cir.1994) attests, is no longer the appropriate one in that circu......
-
P.S., In re
...See U.S. v. Perez (5th Cir.1995), 70 F.3d 345, 348; but see Johnson v. State (Tex.Ct.App.1994), 882 S.W.2d 17, 19-20; State v. Borromeo (4th Cir.1993), 1 F.3d 219, 220-21. 3. Separate Because the double jeopardy clause prohibits punishing a defendant more than once in separate proceedings, ......
-
Stratemeyer v. State
...U.S. 1074, 113 S.Ct. 1036, 122 L.Ed.2d 347 (1993). In the wake of that opinion, the Court entered a supplemental opinion, U.S. v. Borromeo, 1 F.3d 219 (4th Cir.1993), vacating in part its earlier opinion. In the supplemental opinion, the Court held that "[i]n the wake of Austin, an inquiry ......
-
The Double Jeopardy Implications of in Rem Forfeiture of Crime-related Property: the Gradual Realization of a Constitutional Violation
...of drugs was not punishment because it was solely remedial in nature), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 573-74 (1994); United States v. Borromeo, 1 F.3d 219, 221 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that where forfeiture is proportional to remedial purpose, the forfeiture is not punitive); United States v. $28......