United States v. Noel Hernandez
803 F.3d 1341
11th Cir.2015Background
- Defendant Noel Hernandez pled guilty to theft of government funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641.
- The government sought a criminal forfeiture money judgment of $117,659 (the Social Security Administration’s loss) and acknowledged restitution was required.
- At sentencing the district court denied the government’s forfeiture motion but ordered Hernandez to pay $117,659 in restitution.
- The government appealed the denial of forfeiture; Hernandez conceded forfeiture and restitution were statutorily required but argued imposing both would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the legal question de novo and considered the interaction of civil forfeiture authorization under 18 U.S.C. § 981 and the criminal-forfeiture mandate of 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), alongside the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court was required to enter a forfeiture money judgment after conviction when civil forfeiture is authorized and notice was in the indictment | Government: § 2461(c) requires the court to order forfeiture when civil forfeiture is authorized and notice is given | Hernandez conceded statutory requirement but justified district court’s denial by pointing to restitution context | Court: § 2461(c) and Rule 32.2 obligated the district court to order forfeiture; denial was error |
| Whether imposing both forfeiture and restitution for the same offense violates the Double Jeopardy Clause | Government: No double jeopardy; forfeiture and restitution serve distinct purposes | Hernandez: Imposition of both constitutes double punishment/double recovery violating Fifth Amendment | Court: No double jeopardy violation; restitution (victim compensation) and forfeiture (punitive/deprivation of proceeds) are distinct and may both be imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Padron, 527 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining § 2461(c) makes criminal forfeiture available where civil forfeiture is authorized)
- United States v. Joseph, 743 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2014) (distinguishing restitution’s remedial role from forfeiture’s punitive role)
- Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997) (multiple statutory punishments do not trigger double jeopardy when not successive prosecutions)
- United States v. Browne, 505 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2007) (forfeiture legal standards and review)
- United States v. Contorinis, 692 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2012) (criminal forfeiture under § 981 is in personam and punitive rather than remedial)
- United States v. Venturella, 585 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 2009) (forfeiture and restitution serve different goals; imposing both does not raise double jeopardy)
- United States v. Wittig, 575 F.3d 1085 (10th Cir. 2009) (forfeiture is a sentencing component rather than a separate prosecution for double jeopardy purposes)
- United States v. Taylor, 582 F.3d 558 (5th Cir. 2009) (no double recovery where restitution goes to victim agency and forfeiture proceeds to DOJ)