United States v. Frank Amodeo, 916 F.3d 967

Frank Amodeo pleaded guilty to a tax-diversion scheme and agreed in his plea to forfeiture of numerous assets, including ownership of two shell corporations: AQMI Strategy Corp. and Nexia Strategy Corp.
The district court entered a preliminary forfeiture order that the parties agreed was "final as to the defendant," divesting Amodeo of his ownership interest before sentencing.
After no third parties asserted claims in the ancillary proceeding, the district court entered a final forfeiture order vesting clear title to the corporations in the United States.
Years later the corporations were sued by victims (Palaxar), and the government moved to vacate the final forfeiture order only as to AQMI and Nexia so the government would not have to defend them; the district court granted the partial vacatur.
Amodeo moved for reconsideration arguing the district court lacked authority to partially vacate the final order; the court denied relief, and Amodeo appealed the denial.
The Eleventh Circuit held Amodeo lacked Article III appellate standing because the preliminary forfeiture order (which remained intact) had already extinguished his ownership interest, so the partial vacatur caused him no injury and his appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Amodeo's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Amodeo has appellate standing to challenge the district court's partial vacatur of the final forfeiture order	The partial vacatur may have restored ownership or otherwise affected him, so he is aggrieved and has standing to appeal	The preliminary forfeiture order was final as to Amodeo and extinguished his interest; the partial vacatur did not revive his rights, so he suffered no injury	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: Amodeo lacks Article III standing because the preliminary forfeiture order still divested him of any interest
Whether the district court had authority to partially vacate the final forfeiture order	District court lacked authority to alter a final forfeiture order and Amodeo is entitled to review	Government argued vacatur as to the corporations was proper and did not affect Amodeo’s rights; any challenge to district-court authority must be brought by an aggrieved party	Court did not reach the merits of district-court authority because it lacked jurisdiction to resolve Amodeo’s appeal (standing)

Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013) (standing must exist at all stages, including appeal)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (court must first ensure jurisdiction exists)
Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (no mandatory sequencing among threshold grounds; courts may choose among non-merits bases)
United States v. Gross, 213 F.3d 599 (11th Cir. 2000) (preliminary forfeiture order extinguishes defendant’s ownership interest)
United States v. De La Mata, 535 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2008) (vacatur leaves parties’ rights as if judgment never entered)
United States v. $38,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 816 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1987) (for appellate standing in forfeiture, inquiry focuses on defendant’s interest in the property)