United States v. Benjamin Bradley
969 F.3d 585
| 6th Cir. | 2020Background
- From 2009–2015 Bradley ran a scheme collecting opioid prescriptions in Detroit and supplying them to a Tennessee distribution ring led by Donald Buchanan; money flowed back to Bradley by bank deposits and later cash deliveries.
- Bradley pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and conspiracy to launder money; the district court sentenced him to 17 years and ordered forfeiture.
- The First forfeiture order was vacated on appeal in light of Honeycutt v. United States; on remand the district court held further factfinding and ordered Bradley to forfeit a $1,000,000 money judgment, two seized cash bundles, and four properties.
- The forfeiture findings were based on bank records (~$800,000 in deposits to Bradley-controlled accounts), testimony about cash pickups (estimated ~$204,000), seized cash (~$124,000 total), and property purchases during the conspiracy.
- Bradley appealed, arguing (1) §853 does not authorize money judgments; (2) “proceeds”/“obtained” do not include amounts paid onward to coconspirators; (3) the district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous; (4) judge-found forfeiture facts violated the Sixth Amendment; and (5) the forfeiture violated the Eighth Amendment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bradley) | Defendant's Argument (United States) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory authorization for money judgments under 21 U.S.C. § 853 | §853 does not authorize in personam money judgments | §853 authorizes money judgments; Sixth Circuit precedent allows them | Money judgments are authorized; Honeycutt does not undo Hampton |
| Scope of “proceeds” and “obtained” under §853(a) | “Proceeds” excludes amounts defendant received but paid to coconspirators | “Proceeds” means gross receipts defendant obtained, regardless of onward payments | “Proceeds” = gross receipts obtained by defendant; forfeiture may include funds he obtained even if paid out |
| Factual sufficiency / clear-error review of amount, cash, and properties | District court erred in calculating receipts and in finding properties/cash forfeitable | Bank records, testimony, cash seizures, and timing of purchases support forfeiture findings | Findings are supported by record; no clear error in $1M judgment, cash bundles, or four properties |
| Sixth Amendment jury right to decide forfeiture facts | Judge-found facts for forfeiture violate the Sixth Amendment jury trial right | No Sixth Amendment jury right for criminal forfeiture; Libretti controls | No jury right; court may find forfeiture facts; Libretti survives Apprendi challenges |
| Eighth Amendment excessive-fines challenge | Forfeiture is financially ruinous and therefore excessive | Forfeiture is proportionate to grave, large-scale opioid conspiracy and defendant’s profits | Forfeiture not grossly disproportionate to offense; no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (ties forfeiture to proceeds a defendant personally obtained and refines §853 scope)
- Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29 (1995) (criminal forfeiture does not require jury factfinding under the Sixth Amendment)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing statutory maximum require jury findings)
- United States v. Hampton, 732 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2013) (Sixth Circuit recognizes §853 money judgments)
- United States v. Hall, 411 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2005) (discusses jury right and judge-found forfeiture facts)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) (Eighth Amendment disproportionate-fines test: gross disproportionality)
- Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (2012) (addresses factual findings that increase statutory fines; distinguished from indeterminate forfeiture)
- United States v. Real Prop. 10338 Marcy Rd. Nw., 938 F.3d 802 (6th Cir. 2019) (discusses use of aggregate real-estate holdings to infer illicit income and forfeiture)