United States v. Cone
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25797
| 11th Cir. | 2010Background
- ClearGlass, LLC filed a Section 853(n) petition to claim an interest in properties forfeited in the Cones' criminal case.
- The district court entered preliminary orders of forfeiture (POFs) attached to the Cones' judgments and directed non-parties to file ancillary proceedings.
- In 2009 the United States moved to vacate the POFs to improve restitution distribution and asserted ClearGlass lacked standing to object.
- ClearGlass moved for summary judgment and opposed vacatur, arguing lack of district court jurisdiction to vacate the POFs.
- The district court vacated the POFs, concluding jurisdiction existed under Rule 32.2(e) and that ClearGlass lacked standing as a non-party in a vacated ancillary proceeding.
- ClearGlass appealed, but the Eleventh Circuit dismissed for lack of standing, holding no private right to challenging the vacatur order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ClearGlass has standing to challenge vacatur of POFs | ClearGlass argues it has an interest and standing as a petitioner. | U.S. contends ClearGlass lacks standing as a non-party in a vacated ancillary proceeding. | ClearGlass lacks standing; appeal dismissed. |
| Whether the district court had authority to vacate the POFs under Rule 32.2(e) | ClearGlass contends lack of jurisdiction to vacate POFs. | U.S. asserts jurisdiction under Rule 32.2(e) to vacate forfeiture orders. | Issue not reached; dispositive due to lack of standing. |
| Whether Section 853(n) permits post-judgment challenges by non-parties outside ancillary proceedings | ClearGlass relies on Section 853(n) rights to participate. | Section 853 bars non-parties from intervening in criminal trials or filing related actions outside ancillary proceedings. | Non-parties may not challenge outside ancillary proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2002) (forfeiture becomes final and is integrated into the sentence; ancillary procedures govern third-party interests)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975) (standing requires actual or threatened injury created by statute or harm to a legal right)
- United States v. Marion, 562 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing standing and non-party claims in criminal forfeiture contexts)
- Mulhall v. UNITE HERE Local 355, 618 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2010) (standing in federal court focuses on party's ability to bring the claim, not merits)
- United States v. Johnson, 983 F.2d 216 (11th Cir. 1993) (every litigant must have standing to sue in federal court)