United States v. Andracos Marshall, 872 F.3d 213

Marshall was convicted by a jury of drug and money‑laundering offenses; the Government sought forfeiture of proceeds and substitute assets.
The Government’s Bill of Particulars (Nov. 5, 2015) identified ~$59,000 in Marshall’s credit‑union account as subject to forfeiture but did not specify whether as tainted or substitute property.
After conviction and before sentencing, the Government moved for a $108 million forfeiture money judgment; the district court entered a forfeiture order for $51.3 million at sentencing (July 13, 2016).
The $59,000 credit‑union funds were not specifically referenced in that first order; the Government later moved (Aug. 9, 2016) to forfeit those funds as § 853(p) substitute assets and the district court granted the motion.
Marshall sought release of the $59,000 to hire appellate counsel of his choice; the district court denied relief and this Court considered Marshall’s motion to use the forfeited funds for appellate counsel.

Issue	Marshall’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether Marshall may use forfeited substitute assets postconviction to hire appellate counsel of choice	Constitution requires release of substitute assets when needed for appellate counsel	Forfeited substitute assets vest in Government postconviction; no right to use Government’s property to pay counsel	Denied — no constitutional right to use substitute assets postconviction to hire counsel
Whether Rule 32.2’s timing requirements bar forfeiture of the credit‑union funds because Government delayed filing motion	Late Government motion violated Rule 32.2 and should preclude forfeiture of these (innocent) funds	Rule 32.2(e) permits the Government to move at any time to forfeit substitute property; timing is a directive, not jurisdictional, and Marshall had notice	Denied — Rule 32.2 timing did not preclude the late motion; prior notice was sufficient

Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (right to appeal is statutory, not constitutional)
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (due process/equal protection require access to trial record for appeals)
Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (indigent defendants entitled to counsel on first appeal of right)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (right to effective assistance of appellate counsel)
Caplin & Drysdale v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (Sixth Amendment does not permit defendants to use forfeited/tainted assets to pay counsel)
Luis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1083 (restraint of untainted assets pretrial implicates Sixth Amendment; distinguishing tainted vs. untainted property)
United States v. Martin, 662 F.3d 301 (Rule 32.2 timing directives are enforceable but not jurisdictional)