United States v. Christina Carman
933 F.3d 614
6th Cir.2019Background
- Christina Carman was convicted in 2016 of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud related to a large untaxed-cigarette scheme; sentencing occurred on August 30, 2016, and the district court entered judgment on August 31, 2016.
- The indictment sought forfeiture of property and a money judgment (originally up to $45 million); at a post-verdict forfeiture hearing the government agreed Carman would forfeit two Cadillacs and sought a money judgment of about $35 million; the parties briefed the money-judgment issue by April 2016.
- The district court did not announce or enter a money-judgment forfeiture at Carman’s sentencing and made no oral forfeiture announcement; the judgment contained a clerical forfeiture reference the government concedes was erroneous.
- Carman filed a notice of appeal on September 6, 2016, challenging her conviction and sentence; briefing in this court proceeded.
- More than four months after Carman’s notice of appeal, on January 17, 2017, the district court entered a $17.5 million forfeiture order amending Carman’s judgment; Carman then appealed that forfeiture order.
- The Sixth Circuit vacated that January 17, 2017 forfeiture order because the notice of appeal had already divested the district court of authority to alter Carman’s sentence (including entry of a forfeiture order) after adjudicatory authority had passed to the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court lacked jurisdiction to enter forfeiture after sentencing because it violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2 timing requirements | Carman: Rule 32.2 required a preliminary forfeiture order before or at sentencing; failing that, the court lost authority to enter the forfeiture later | Government: The district court should be able to enter the forfeiture despite Rule 32.2 timing lapses; vacating would be mere paper shuffling | Court: Rule deadlines are nonjurisdictional; Rule 32.2 violations alone did not strip jurisdiction, so this argument fails |
| Whether the district court could enter a forfeiture order after Carman filed a notice of appeal | Carman: Filing an appeal divested the district court of authority over aspects of the case on appeal (including sentence and forfeiture), so later forfeiture was invalid | Government: The court should leave the forfeiture in place and could re-enter it; vacatur would be formalistic | Court: The notice of appeal transferred adjudicatory authority over sentence (including forfeiture) to the court of appeals; the district court lacked authority to alter the sentence after appeal and the forfeiture order was invalid |
| Whether the district court’s narrow authority to act "in aid of the appeal" permitted entry of the forfeiture | Carman: Post-appeal actions in aid of the appeal are narrow and do not include altering a sentence | Government: (Implicit) The action could be viewed as administrative or in aid of case management | Court: Actions in aid of appeal are narrow and do not include altering the case on appeal; the forfeiture order altered the sentence and was beyond district court power |
| Whether this court has jurisdiction to review the forfeiture order | Carman: She raised the issue on appeal; sentence imposed in violation of law is reviewable | Government: Not argued to preclude appellate jurisdiction | Court: Appellate jurisdiction exists under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1); this court may review and vacate the forfeiture order |
Key Cases Cited
- Manrique v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266 (2017) (notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of control over appealed aspects)
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) (filing an appeal transfers adjudicatory authority and divests district court of control over appealed matters)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (court rules’ time prescriptions are not jurisdictional)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (court rules do not create or withdraw federal jurisdiction)
- Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005) (rule deadlines are enforceable but nonjurisdictional if forfeited)
- Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29 (1995) (forfeiture is part of the criminal sentence)
- United States v. George, 841 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2016) (district court lacked authority to enter forfeiture after defendant filed notice of appeal)
- Inland Bulk Transfer Co. v. Cummins Engine Co., 332 F.3d 1007 (6th Cir. 2003) (district court cannot take actions that alter the case on appeal)