United States v. Benjamin Bradley
897 F.3d 779
6th Cir.2018Background
- Bradley participated in an 18-person scheme (2012–2015) that collected oxycodone/oxymorphone in Detroit and shipped pills to a buyer in Nashville; payments were funneled through multiple bank accounts and intermediaries.
- A federal grand jury charged the ring with drug distribution (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846) and money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956); Bradley pleaded guilty to both conspiracies.
- The district court imposed a 204-month (17-year) prison sentence and entered a criminal forfeiture judgment of at least $1,000,000, applying the judgment jointly and severally to Bradley and co-defendants.
- The forfeiture amount was based on the district court’s finding of the conspiracy’s gross proceeds (~$1,000,000), not specific findings of how much Bradley personally obtained.
- Bradley appealed, arguing (inter alia) that the joint-and-several forfeiture violates Honeycutt and that sentencing and procedural errors occurred; the Sixth Circuit affirmed the prison sentence but vacated and remanded the forfeiture order for individualized factfinding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bradley) | Defendant's Argument (Gov.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of joint-and-several criminal forfeiture | Forfeiture order improperly imposes joint-and-several liability for $1,000,000 without showing Bradley personally acquired that amount | Forfeiture is harmless; record shows Bradley personally received ≥ $1,000,000 (bank deposits, cash pickups) | Forfeiture vacated and remanded: Honeycutt bars joint-and-several forfeiture; district court must determine amount attributable to Bradley individually |
| Rule 32.2 / due process re: post‑sentencing evidence | District court violated Rule 32.2 and due process by allowing government to introduce new forfeiture evidence after sentencing | District court provided opportunities (sur-reply, chance to be heard), so due process satisfied | No due process violation found given opportunity to respond; remand for fresh factfinding nonetheless required |
| Sixth Amendment jury right to find forfeiture-triggering facts | Judge (not jury) made factual findings for mandatory criminal forfeiture; Sixth Amendment jury right may require jury findings | Government did not fully develop this circuit question below; court flagged the issue for remand briefing | Question left open; court invited parties to address Apprendi/Southern Union/Libretti implications on remand |
| Sentencing: drug-quantity finding and reasonableness | Court failed to explain drug-quantity attribution; misweighing active ingredient vs total pill weight; disparity concerns | Probation’s conservative drug-quantity estimate supported; prosecution corrected weight method and proper calculation is not an ‘‘unwarranted’’ disparity | Sentence affirmed as procedurally and substantively reasonable; drug-quantity findings supported and weight-correction appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (§ 853 forbids joint-and-several forfeiture that reaches untainted property)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain‑error review framework)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due‑process balancing of procedural protections)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (jury must find facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum)
- Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (2012) (Apprendi principles applied to criminal fines)
- Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29 (1995) (discusses jury role in criminal forfeiture)
- United States v. Elliott, 876 F.3d 855 (6th Cir. 2017) (forfeiture must be proportionate to property defendant actually acquired)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for reviewing sentence reasonableness)