McIntosh v. United States
601 U.S. 330
SCOTUS2024Background
- Louis McIntosh was convicted of multiple counts of Hobbs Act robbery and related firearm offenses; the government sought forfeiture of $75,000 and a BMW allegedly derived from the crimes.
- The indictment notified McIntosh of potential forfeiture and the government detailed both items in a pretrial bill of particulars.
- At sentencing, the District Court orally imposed forfeiture of both the cash and the BMW, but the government did not submit the written forfeiture order as required.
- On appeal, after a government motion, the case was remanded to the District Court to enter a formal order of forfeiture, which McIntosh objected to, arguing the court lacked authority due to failure to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(B).
- Both the District Court and Second Circuit found the missed deadline was a harmless procedural error, not barring forfeiture; the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the limited timing issue.
Issues
| Issue | McIntosh's Argument | U.S. Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether missing Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B)'s deadline for a preliminary order of forfeiture bars a district court from ordering forfeiture. | The failure to enter a preliminary forfeiture order before sentencing as required by Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B) prohibits any forfeiture order. | The rule is a flexible, time-related directive; failure to comply does not remove the court’s authority to order forfeiture. | Rule is a time-related directive; noncompliance is harmless error, not jurisdictional or claim-processing; court retains power to order forfeiture. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dolan, 560 U.S. 605 (2010) (Statutory timing provisions for courts are typically directives, not bars to judicial action, absent specified consequences)
- Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149 (2003) (Deadline for federal administrative actions does not preclude action after deadline if no consequence is specified)
- Regions Hospital v. Shalala, 522 U.S. 448 (1998) (Missed agency deadlines do not strip the agency’s power to act unless Congress says so)
- United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993) (Deadlines for civil forfeiture do not by themselves bar government action after the deadline)