United States v. Erica Hampton
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21210
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Erica Lynn Hampton pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of access device fraud arising from a scheme that caused approximately $141,769.77 in intended losses and about $77,312.86 (later corrected to $69,540.01) in actual losses.
- The indictment gave notice of criminal forfeiture of proceeds (and substitute property under 21 U.S.C. § 853(p)), including a money judgment for the proceeds; Hampton’s plea agreement acknowledged forfeiture and restitution obligations.
- At sentencing the district court entered a personal money-judgment forfeiture in the amount of $69,540.01; Hampton did not object to the forfeiture order below and appealed after judgment.
- On appeal Hampton argued (under plain-error review) that the court lacked authority to enter a forfeiture money judgment against a defendant with no assets at sentencing and that a money judgment cannot reach future or non‑identified assets.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed statutory and rule authority (including Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2) and joined a consensus of circuits holding that criminal forfeiture may include an in personam money judgment measured by proceeds received, even where the defendant lacks assets at sentencing.
- The court affirmed, holding the money judgment was authorized, mandatory under the applicable forfeiture statutes, and measured by proceeds rather than a defendant’s on‑hand assets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may enter a personal money-judgment forfeiture when defendant had no assets at sentencing | Gov't: Money judgment is authorized to forfeit proceeds and can be enforced against substitute assets later | Hampton: Forfeiture money judgment impermissible against future/nonexistent assets; insufficient notice | Money judgment authorized; measured by proceeds, not current assets; affirmed under plain-error review |
| Whether the indictment provided adequate notice to seek a forfeiture money judgment | Gov't: Indictment and Rule 32.2 permit notice without identifying specific property or exact amount | Hampton: Indictment could not identify assets she did not possess | Indictment provided adequate notice; Rule 32.2 permits omission of specific property/amount |
| Whether forfeiture statutes authorize in personam money judgments | Gov't: Statutes mandate forfeiture of proceeds and permit money judgments as a practical means of enforcement | Hampton: Statutes (and § 853 procedures) do not expressly permit money judgments against future assets | Court: Statutes are mandatory; nothing forbids money judgments; Rule 32.2 contemplates money judgments |
| Standard of review given plea waiver and failure to object at sentencing | Gov't: Plain-error review applies; plea waiver arguments not dispositive here | Hampton: Appeal waiver shouldn't bar review of court exceeding authority; preserved challenge to legality of sentence | Court applied plain-error review, declined to resolve scope of waiver, found no error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hall, 434 F.3d 42 (1st Cir.) (money judgment permissible as criminal-forfeiture sanction against defendant rather than property)
- United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189 (3d Cir.) (forfeiture money judgment may be entered though defendant lacks assets at sentencing)
- United States v. Casey, 444 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir.) (forfeiture amount measured by proceeds, not retained assets)
- United States v. Baker, 227 F.3d 955 (7th Cir.) (permitting in personam money judgment forfeiture)
- United States v. Smith, 656 F.3d 821 (8th Cir.) (surveying circuit consensus permitting money-judgment forfeiture)
- United States v. Kalish, 626 F.3d 165 (2d Cir.) (indictment language provided adequate notice of money-judgment forfeiture)
- United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir.) (extending precedent permitting money-judgment forfeiture under § 2461(c))
- Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29 (1995) (criminal forfeiture is part of sentence)
- United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600 (1989) (Congressional language makes forfeiture mandatory where statute applies)