United States v. Purify, 702 F. App'x 680

In 2014 Corry Purify was charged in a large drug conspiracy; the indictment included a forfeiture notice for at least $10 million, with defendants jointly and severally liable.
Purify was arrested twice; on the second arrest police seized $2,688 from his pockets.
Purify pleaded guilty and agreed to a $10,000,000 criminal forfeiture money judgment under 21 U.S.C. § 853(a), jointly and severally, and was sentenced to 120 months; the district court entered a forfeiture order.
In 2016 Purify sought return of the $2,688; the government moved to forfeit it as a substitute asset under § 853(p) to satisfy the money judgment; Purify objected, arguing the government had not shown the conspiracy proceeds were unavailable due to his acts or omissions.
The government argued § 853(p) did not require a showing of the defendant’s own act or omission because joint-and-several liability makes each defendant liable for dissipation by any coconspirator; the district court agreed and granted forfeiture of the $2,688.
After briefing, the Supreme Court decided Honeycutt v. United States (2017), holding § 853 does not permit holding a defendant liable for substitute property derived by a coconspirator who, not the defendant, acquired or dissipated the property; the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for further findings in light of Honeycutt.

Issue	Government's Argument	Purify's Argument	Held
Whether § 853(p) permits forfeiture of substitute assets from a defendant based on joint-and-several liability for proceeds dissipated by coconspirators	Joint-and-several liability makes a defendant vicariously liable for coconspirators’ acts that dissipated proceeds, so § 853(p) allows substitute forfeiture from any conspirator	§ 853(p) requires the government to show the forfeitable property is unavailable due to the defendant’s own act or omission	Reversed: Honeycutt forecloses vicarious liability theory; district court must make findings whether the defendant personally acquired or caused dissipation of the specific funds before ordering substitute forfeiture
Whether the district court made adequate factual findings that Purify personally obtained the $2,688 or caused its dissipation	After Honeycutt, argues alternative ground: plea admission that Purify sold drugs could support finding he personally obtained at least $2,688	No relevant district-court factual findings were made; government did not meet § 853(p) requirement as to Purify’s personal acts	Remanded: district court must make explicit findings on whether Purify personally acquired or dissipated the seized funds to justify substitute forfeiture

Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (holds § 853 does not authorize holding a defendant liable for property acquired or dissipated solely by a co-conspirator)