United States v. Cynthia Brown, 694 F. App'x 57

Cynthia Brown was convicted for participation in a mortgage-fraud conspiracy; the District Court entered a Forfeiture Money Judgment for $7,418,303, labeling her "jointly and severally liable."
The money judgment cited forfeiture authority under statutes including 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C).
The Supreme Court decided Honeycutt v. United States, holding that 21 U.S.C. § 853 limits forfeiture to property personally acquired or used by the defendant and bars imposing joint-and-several forfeiture liability for co-conspirators’ proceeds the defendant did not acquire.
The Third Circuit concluded Honeycutt’s reasoning applies equally to § 982(a)(2), because it similarly limits forfeiture to tainted property obtained by the defendant.
The panel agreed the joint-and-several forfeiture judgment was erroneous and ordered remand to recalculate Brown’s forfeiture liability.
The court declined Brown’s request for de novo resentencing, limiting remand to recalculation of forfeiture; the amended judgment should also deduct an earlier identified $69,776 restitution error.

Issue	Brown's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Honeycutt’s rule applies to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2) forfeiture	Honeycutt applies; Brown argued joint-and-several forfeiture exceeded statutory scope	Agreed Honeycutt applies to similar statutes but focused on forfeiture correction only	Honeycutt applies to § 982(a)(2); joint-and-several forfeiture was error because forfeiture is limited to property acquired/used by defendant
Scope of remand: limited forfeiture recalculation vs de novo resentencing	Brown sought discretionary de novo resentencing on all penalties	Government urged remand limited to recalculating forfeiture liability	Remand limited to resentencing solely to determine appropriate forfeiture amount; no full resentencing warranted
Treatment of previously identified restitution error	N/A	N/A	District Court must deduct the erroneous $69,776 restitution when entering amended judgment

Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (forfeiture under § 853 limited to property personally acquired or used by defendant; bars joint-and-several liability reaching untainted co-conspirator proceeds)
United States v. Brown, [citation="661 F. App'x 190"] (3d Cir. 2016) (prior appellate disposition addressing this defendant and noting restitution issue to be corrected)