United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235

Newman robbed two banks, stole $5,102 total, and pleaded guilty with forfeiture judgments totaling $5,102 under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).
Tedesco conspired to obtain mortgage loans, pleaded guilty, and agreed to forfeit $1,000,000; the district court later entered a $100 forfeiture, then restitution was ordered and forfeiture challenged.
The government sought criminal forfeiture and appealed after the district court reduced or eliminated forfeiture in both cases.
Statutes provide mandatory forfeiture where the government shows proceeds; forfeiture is separate from restitution and not subject to 3553(a) discretionary reduction.
Rule 32.2 governs forfeiture forms; money judgments are an allowed form when the government seeks forfeiture of proceeds, and substitute property procedure is not triggered here.
The court held that the district court erred by reducing or eliminating forfeiture and remanded for proper entry of forfeiture amounts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether forfeiture is mandatory when proceeds are established	Newman and Tedesco: mandatory forfeiture applies; court must order proceeds.	Newman and Tedesco: district court may reduce forfeiture under sentencing discretion.	Forfeiture mandatory; district court erred in reducing.
Relation between restitution and criminal forfeiture	Restitution does not empower reducing forfeiture.	Restitution may offset forfeiture.	No reduction of forfeiture due to restitution; separate remedies.
Form of forfeiture governing money proceeds	Government may seek a money judgment under Rule 32.2(b).	Court could consider alternative forms or reductions.	Money judgment proper; substitute property not required here.
Appropriate amount for Newman’s forfeiture	Proceeds equal $5,102; must enter $5,102 forfeiture.	District court could adjust amount.	Vacate and remand to enter $5,102 forfeiture.
Approach to Tedesco’s proceeds and need for factual findings	Proceeds amount should be at least $1,000,000 per plea or evidence.	Plea amount may suffice; court may rely on stipulations.	Remand; if no doubt remains about $1,000,000, enter that amount; otherwise develop factual basis for proceeds.

United States v. Casey, 444 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006) (mandatory nature of proceeds-based forfeiture; distinction from fines)
United States v. McGinty, 610 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2010) (recognizes money judgments as proper form of criminal forfeiture)
United States v. Boulware, 384 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2004) (restitution and forfeiture are separate; no automatic credit for repayments)
Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court, 1995) (limits on forfeiture; due process considerations)
United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (Supreme Court, 1998) (Excessive Fines Clause considerations in forfeiture)
United States v. 3814 NW Thurman St., 164 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 1999) (Eighth Amendment and forfeiture limits in Ninth Circuit context)