United States v. Eneshia Carlyle
712 F. App'x 862
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Eneshia Carlyle and her husband James Cobb ran a scheme filing fraudulent tax returns using stolen identities; IRS payouts totaled $1,820,759.00.
- Carlyle pled guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft; she did not plead to the conspiracy charge.
- Her plea agreement expressly acknowledged forfeiture of at least $610,000 and included a waiver of challenges to forfeiture (including Excessive Fines Clause claims).
- The government sought a forfeiture money judgment of $1,820,759 and the district court held Carlyle jointly and severally liable with Cobb for the entire amount.
- Carlyle appealed the forfeiture and argued joint-and-several liability was improper and that the forfeiture violated the Eighth Amendment; the Eleventh Circuit requested further briefing on Excessive Fines issues.
- While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Honeycutt v. United States, and the government conceded Carlyle cannot be held jointly and severally liable for the full proceeds merely as a coconspirator.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carlyle can be held jointly and severally liable for the full proceeds of the scheme | Government: forfeiture may be imposed on coconspirators for proceeds of the scheme | Carlyle: Honeycutt bars joint-and-several liability; she should be liable only for proceeds she actually obtained ($610,000) | Vacated and remanded: district court erred to the extent it imposed joint-and-several liability for the entire proceeds; must reassess under Honeycutt |
| Whether the forfeiture violates the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause | Government: forfeiture within statutory authority and need not be reduced | Carlyle: amount sought is grossly disproportional and exceeds plea-contemplated amount | Court did not decide excessiveness on the merits; remanded for district court to apply Honeycutt and then address constitutionality if necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (defendant liable only for proceeds he actually acquired; rejects joint-and-several liability under §853)
- United States v. Seher, 562 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing Excessive Fines Clause challenges to forfeiture)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) (forfeiture violates Excessive Fines Clause if grossly disproportional)
- United States v. Browne, 505 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2007) (factors for assessing gross disproportionality)
- United States v. Cobb, 842 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2016) (affirming total IRS payout calculation for the scheme)
- United States v. Gjeli, 867 F.3d 418 (3d Cir. 2017) (applies Honeycutt reasoning to 18 U.S.C. § 981 forfeiture)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural standard for counsel seeking to withdraw when appellate issues lack arguable merit)