United States v. Arnold (Richard Sr.), 878 F.3d 940

Richard Arnold and family ran a scheme to divert vehicle-purchase rebates into a purported charitable trust, use some funds to make loans then keep remainder for personal expenses, causing victims to suffer loan defaults or repossessions.
Arnold pled guilty to wire fraud and conspiracy; the indictment notified him the Government would seek a money-judgment forfeiture equal to proceeds from the offenses.
The district court entered a preliminary (general) forfeiture order post-conviction but without a dollar amount, stating it would be amended under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(e)(1) when calculated.
The court sentenced Arnold, deferred final forfeiture and restitution calculation, then later entered a restitution order ($280,075.15) and, after disputes over proceeds were resolved, amended the forfeiture order to a $160,136.50 money judgment.
Arnold appealed, arguing (1) the court lacked jurisdiction to amend the forfeiture order after sentencing because Rule 32.2 required a specified amount before sentencing, and (2) the court erred by not requiring forfeited funds to be applied to reduce his restitution obligation.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding Rule 32.2 permits a pre-sentencing general order later amended when the money judgment is calculated and that forfeiture need not offset restitution under governing precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether entry/amendment of a forfeiture money-judgment after sentencing violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2 and deprived the court of jurisdiction	Arnold: Rule 32.2 required the forfeiture amount to be determined before sentencing; amending after sentencing was impermissible	Government/District Court: Rule 32.2(b)(2)(C) allows a general forfeiture order to be entered if the amount cannot be calculated and permits later amendment under Rule 32.2(e)(1)	Court: Affirmed — no Rule 32.2 violation; amendment after sentencing lawful where disputes prevented pre-sentencing calculation
Whether forfeited proceeds must be applied to reduce restitution owed to victims	Arnold: Forfeiture funds should be used to offset restitution, lowering total payments	Government/District Court: Forfeiture and restitution are separate mandatory remedies serving different purposes; statutes do not permit offset	Court: Affirmed — forfeiture and restitution need not offset; prior precedent controls

United States v. McGinty, 610 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2010) (forfeiture and restitution are separate mandatory remedies; amounts do not offset)
United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (statutory language using "shall" and broad terms makes forfeiture mandatory)
United States v. Alalade, 204 F.3d 536 (4th Cir. 2000) (MVRA does not permit reducing restitution by amount of forfeiture)
United States v. Taylor, 582 F.3d 558 (5th Cir. 2009) (imposition of both forfeiture and restitution adheres to mandatory statutory schemes)
United States v. Emerson, 128 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1997) (rejecting credit of forfeiture against restitution)