United States v. Hernandez
Decision Date | 19 October 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 15–11202,15–11202 |
Citation | 803 F.3d 1341 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Noel HERNANDEZ, Defendant–Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Linda Julin McNamara, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, Nicole M. Andrejko, Robert Edward Bodnar, Jr., U.S. Attorney's Office, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Rick Carey, Federal Public Defender's Office, Ocala, FL, Rosemary Cakmis, Meghan Ann Collins, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender's Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant–Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 5:14–cr–00046–WTH–PRL–1.
Before HULL, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
After Defendant Noel Hernandez pled guilty to theft of government funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, the government moved the district court for entry of a forfeiture money judgment of $117,659, the amount of loss sustained by the Social Security Administration as a result of Hernandez's offense. In its motion, the government acknowledged that the district court was required to impose restitution. At sentencing, the district court denied the government's forfeiture motion, but ordered Hernandez to pay restitution in the amount of $117,659. The government appeals, arguing that the district court was required by law to enter a forfeiture money judgment.
Hernandez does not cross-appeal. Further, Hernandez concedes that the district court was required by statute both to impose a forfeiture money judgment against him and to order restitution. Hernandez instead argues that we may affirm the district court's ruling because the imposition of both forfeiture and restitution orders would violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy.
After review, we conclude that the district court erred in denying the government's forfeiture motion.1 Civil forfeiture was authorized against Hernandez for his theft-of-government-funds offense under 18 U.S.C. § 981, the civil forfeiture statute applicable in this case. See 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) ( ); 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(D) ( ). In turn, 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) provides:
In its indictment, the government alleged that Hernandez “shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), all of his interest in any property constituting or derived from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of said violation.” Because civil forfeiture was authorized and the government included notice of the forfeiture in Hernandez's indictment, the district court was required by § 2461(c) to order forfeiture as part of his sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) ; Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2(a), (b).
In addition, under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, the district court was required to order restitution for the full loss suffered by the Social Security Administration. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663(c)(1), 3664(f)(1)(A). In doing so, the district court could not offset the amount of restitution by the amount subject to forfeiture or consider Hernandez's economic circumstances. See United States v. Joseph, 743 F.3d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir.2014). Thus, the district court was required by law both to grant the forfeiture motion and order full restitution, and it erred when it denied the government's forfeiture motion on the ground that it had also ordered Hernandez to pay restitution.
Hernandez's double jeopardy argument is also unavailing. Where multiple criminal punishments are statutorily authorized for the same offense, but do not occur in successive proceedings, there is no Double Jeopardy Clause violation. See Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 98–99, 118 S.Ct. 488, 493, 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997). Although this Court has not directly addressed whether imposing both restitution and forfeiture judgments for a single offense implicates the prohibition on double jeopardy, this Court has held that Congress intended restitution and forfeiture to serve distinct roles in sentencing. See Joseph, 743 F.3d at 1354 (); see also United States v. Browne, 505 F.3d 1229, 1281 (11th Cir.2007) ; United States v. Contorinis, 692 F.3d 136, 146 (2d Cir.2012) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Bane
...United States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581, 594–95 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Hernandez, 803 F.3d 1341, 1343–44 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (describing the distinct roles played by restitution and forfeiture in criminal sentencing). Because restitutio......
-
United States v. Hatum
...Waked and that such judgment must reflect the total money laundered through Mr. Waked's conspiracy. See, e.g. , United States v. Hernandez , 803 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir. 2015) (discussing the mandatory nature of 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) ); United States v. Fleet , 498 F.3d 1225, 1229 (11th Cir......
-
Ricks v. InDyne, Inc.
... ... INDYNE, INC., Defendant. Case No: 3:18cv2171-RV/HTC United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division. Signed August 4, 2021 552 F.Supp.3d 1252 ... ...
-
United States v. Mincey
...its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Farias, 836 F.3d 1315, 1323-24 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Hernandez, 803 F.3d 1341, 1342 n.1 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). We review questions of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280, 1284......