United States v. Smith, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19397

Smith pled guilty to conspiring to distribute 500g+ methamphetamine and possessing with intent to distribute 5g+ meth, leading to a district court sentence of 168 months and a $10,000 forfeiture.
Officers found approximately 45.5g of meth, drug paraphernalia, and an unloaded Colt rifle about 15 feet from the meth when executing a search warrant at Smith's residence.
The government sought forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853, initially a $1,000,000 proceeds claim, with the court issuing a preliminary order and later a final order of forfeiture.
At sentencing, Smith challenged the $10,000 money judgment under § 853(p) as substitute property; the district court upheld the preliminary order and final forfeiture.
Smith objected to the two-level enhancement for possession of a firearm under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1); the district court found the adjustment appropriate.
On appeal, Smith argued the sentence was unreasonable, the forfeiture order unauthorized or unconstitutional, and that procedural due process issues invalidated the money judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Firearm enhancement applicability	Smith argues no nexus between rifle and offenses; weapon used only for target practice.	Smith contends weapon presence is insufficient to connect to drug offenses.	Nexus established; firearm adjustment valid
Reasonableness of sentence	Smith claims unreasonable weighting of factors and drug quantity, arguing minimal criminal history and role.	Government asserts within-range sentence and district court properly weighed factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).	Sentence presumptively reasonable within advisory range
Authority of money judgment under § 853(p)	Money judgment not authorized by statute or post-sentencing asset availability; procedural concerns.	§ 853(p) permits forfeiture of "any other property" including post-sentencing assets; liberal construction for remedial purposes.	District court authorized to enter $10,000 money judgment
Procedural due process, double jeopardy, and excessive fines	Challenges to process, potential dual punishment, and Fines Clause concerns.	Forfeiture is a punishment within the single sentence; proceedings provided notice; no due process violation; not an excessive fine.	No due process violation; no double jeopardy; not grossly disproportionate

Perez-Guerrero, 334 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2003) (burden to prove firearm adjustment by preponderance; nexus through proximity)
Brown v. United States, 169 F.3d 531 (8th Cir. 1999) (presence of firearm may support nexus to drug offense)
Moore, 212 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2000) (mere presence insufficient; require temporal/spatial relation)
Hatcher, 323 F.3d 666 (8th Cir. 2003) (indictment need not specify substitute assets; property notice considerations)
Awad, 598 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2010) (§ 853 may permit money judgments when assets are unavailable)
Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2006) (forfeiture statute interpreted broadly to effect remedial purposes)
Casey, 444 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006) (forfeiture authority to extend to substitute/assets where appropriate)
Hall, 434 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2006) (forfeiture authority and procedural posture considerations)
Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29 (1995) (forfeiture as punishment within single proceeding; not a separate offense)