United States v. Priscilla Valdez
911 F.3d 960
9th Cir.2018Background
- Priscilla Valdez pleaded guilty to attempted export (smuggling) of 10,000 rounds of ammunition from the U.S. to Mexico in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 554(a).
- Valdez supplied cash, accompanied co-defendant Ruiz to buy the ammunition, and knowingly left the ammo in a rented car, then turned the car over to third parties who removed the ammunition.
- The government could not recover the physical ammunition; it sought criminal forfeiture under 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), invoking the procedures of 21 U.S.C. § 853 to obtain substitute-property forfeiture.
- The district court entered a money judgment forfeiture against Valdez for $1,235 (half the $2,470 purchase price) and sentenced her to probation; Valdez appealed only the forfeiture order.
- The central legal question was whether § 2461(c) permits criminal forfeiture of substitute property by incorporating § 853(p), even when the underlying forfeitable property is defined outside § 853 (here, by § 924(d)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2461(c) authorizes criminal forfeiture when civil forfeiture is available under § 924(d) | Gov: § 2461(c) allows criminal forfeiture where civil forfeiture is available and defendant is convicted | Valdez: § 2461(c) does not apply because § 924(d) does not use the word “property” | The court held § 2461(c) applies; § 924(d) authorizes civil forfeiture of ammunition (a form of property), so criminal forfeiture under § 2461(c) is permitted |
| Whether § 2461(c) incorporates § 853(p) so substitute-property forfeiture is available | Gov: § 2461(c) incorporates the procedures of § 853, including § 853(p) | Valdez: § 2461(c) only permits forfeiture of “the property” and does not incorporate § 853(p) because § 853(a) limits who/what § 853 covers | The court held § 2461(c) incorporates § 853 procedures (including § 853(p)), so substitute-property forfeiture is authorized |
| Whether § 853(p)(1) can apply when the forfeitable property is defined outside § 853 (i.e., by § 924) | Gov: Procedural references in § 853 should be read to mean “property described elsewhere as forfeitable under the statute at issue” | Valdez: § 853(p)(1) refers to “property described in subsection (a),” so it does not apply to ammunition because § 853(a) defines property for drug offenses only | The court held § 853(a) is substantive and not incorporated; procedural language in § 853(p) should be read to refer to the forfeitable property defined by the statute at issue (here § 924) |
| Whether Valdez’s acts meet § 853(p)(1)(B) (transfer to third party) so substitute forfeiture is appropriate | Gov: Valdez caused the ammunition to be transferred to third parties by funding purchase and turning over car/keys | Valdez: Argued textual limits or inequity — different treatment depending on timing of arrest | The court held Valdez’s conduct caused transfer to a third party under § 853(p)(1)(B) and substitute property forfeiture is proper; equitable concerns do not bar the statutory remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir.) (§ 2461(c) permits criminal forfeiture where civil forfeiture is available)
- Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (Sup. Ct.) (§ 853(p) is the means to recoup substitute property when original property is unavailable)
- United States v. Lo, 839 F.3d 777 (9th Cir.) (describing § 853(p) as a procedure incorporated by § 2461(c))
- United States v. Gregoire, 638 F.3d 962 (8th Cir.) (holding § 853(p) is available under § 2461(c))
- United States v. Alamoudi, 452 F.3d 310 (4th Cir.) (applying § 853(p) via § 2461(c))
- United States v. Bermudez, 413 F.3d 304 (2d Cir.) (procedural application of § 853(p) to property defined outside § 853)
- United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53 (Sup. Ct.) (statutory-interpretation principle on express exceptions)