United States v. Gregory Bane, 948 F.3d 1290

Ben (father) and Greg (son) were convicted of a healthcare‑fraud scheme; Ben owned/operated the companies and Greg was VP of Operations.
The indictment included a forfeiture notice estimating proceeds and stating the defendants were “jointly and severally liable”; the district court entered a preliminary and then final forfeiture money judgment for $5,846,684.54 and listed assets from both defendants.
Neither defendant appealed the forfeiture orders at sentencing, and the government obtained property from both to satisfy forfeiture.
After Honeycutt v. United States (2017) and this Circuit’s application of Honeycutt to the healthcare‑fraud statute in Elbeblawy, Ben and Greg sought relief in district court; the court denied Ben’s and Greg’s postconviction motions as untimely or lacking standing.
On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it held the defendants had standing to challenge the preliminary forfeiture order but were procedurally defaulted because Honeycutt‑style statutory error is not jurisdictional and they failed to show cause and prejudice. Judge Martin concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing the joint‑and‑several forfeiture as to Greg was jurisdictional error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge forfeiture	Ben and Greg: may challenge preliminary forfeiture because it caused loss of their property	United States: final forfeiture adjudicates third‑party claims and only preliminary orders affect defendant's property interest	Court: defendants have standing to challenge the preliminary forfeiture order
Whether Honeycutt error is jurisdictional	Ben/Greg: statutory error (imposing joint‑and‑several liability) is jurisdictional and thus not forfeited	United States: it is a statutory sentencing/forfeiture error, not jurisdictional	Court: Honeycutt error is not jurisdictional
Procedural default (need to raise on direct appeal)	Ben/Greg: Honeycutt issue was novel/futile to raise on direct appeal	United States: failure to raise on direct appeal bars collateral review unless cause and prejudice shown	Court: claim not novel; defendants failed to show cause, so procedural default bars relief
Prejudice / Merits of Honeycutt claim	Ben: argues joint liability unlawful; Greg: argues he did not acquire the full proceeds and thus suffers prejudice	United States: Ben stipulated to the full proceeds; government could have used restitution for Greg's assets; no actual prejudice shown	Court: defendants did not prove actual prejudice; no entitlement to relief on coram nobis grounds

Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (Supreme Court holding §853(a)(1) does not permit joint‑and‑several forfeiture for co‑conspirator’s proceeds)
United States v. Elbeblawy, 899 F.3d 925 (11th Cir. 2018) (applying Honeycutt reasoning to the §982(a)(7) healthcare‑fraud forfeiture statute)
United States v. Peter, 310 F.3d 709 (11th Cir. 2002) (discussing when indictment defects can be jurisdictional)
McKay v. United States, 657 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2011) (procedural default principles for collateral review)
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (defining "jurisdiction" as statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate and narrowing jurisdictional label)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (court decisions about retroactivity and limits on punishment authority)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (retroactivity of new rules that alter statutory reach and sentencing authority)
United States v. Amodeo, 916 F.3d 967 (11th Cir. 2019) (standing to challenge preliminary vs final forfeiture orders)
United States v. Cobbs, 967 F.2d 1555 (11th Cir. 1992) (applied plain‑error review to restitution orders exceeding statutory authority)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (futility alone does not establish cause to excuse procedural default)
Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29 (1995) (forfeiture is part of sentence, not a substantive federal offense)