United States v. Zorrilla-Echevarria, 671 F.3d 1

Ramon Zorrilla-Echevarría was arrested after Customs detected approximately $543,801–$543,826 in currency concealed in two wooden doors shipped on a Puerto Rico–Dominican Republic ferry.
Indictment charged two counts for illegally transporting currency and evading reporting requirements under 31 U.S.C. §§ 5316 and 5332, with criminal forfeiture sought for $543,826 under 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(1) and § 5332(b)(2).
A one-day jury trial found Zorrilla-Echevarría guilty on both counts; the government sought a preliminary forfeiture order equal to the forfeitable amount and the district court granted it.
After sentencing, disputes arose over whether the forfeiture was a money judgment or a forfeiture of specific property, and third-party interests were raised by Castillo-Peña who claimed ownership of part of the funds.
The district court later amended several orders, including converting the forfeiture to a money judgment and attaching the seized cash to satisfy it; confusion ensued about the nature of the forfeiture and due process protections for third parties.
The First Circuit remanded for proper third-party notice and hearings, vacated the portion using attached funds to satisfy the money judgment, and affirmed the money-judgment forfeiture for Zorrilla-Echevarría.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority to impose money judgment	Zorrilla-Echevarría contends § 5332(b)(4) authorizes money judgments only if the property is unavailable.	Government argues the court properly imposed a money judgment and later clarified the nature of the order.	Authority to impose a money judgment exists; appeal on this ground is clarified but in part waived.
Amendment of judgment to include forfeiture	Amendment to include forfeiture after sentencing was improper and beyond authority.	Rule 36 allows clerical corrections; amendment was proper to reflect intent and comply with updated rules.	Amendment to include the forfeiture is valid; clerical-correction authority applies.
Third-party ancillary hearing	Castillo-Peña was entitled to an ancillary hearing to contest interests in the funds.	Ancillary proceedings not required for money-judgment forfeiture, though third-party rights may be addressed on remand.	Remand to cure third-party notice and hearing rights; provisionally vacate to permit contesting attachment.
Due process and delay for third-party claim	Delay between seizure and forfeiture proceedings violated due process for Castillo-Peña.	Delay did not deprive Castillo-Peña of due process; ancillary procedures were available.	Delay not constitutionally dispositive; Castillo-Peña will receive a remanded hearing with no prejudice.

United States v. Hall, 434 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2006) (authority of money-judgment forfeiture recognized)
United States v. Yeje-Cabrera, 430 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (clerical-error remedies and Rule 32.2 implications discussed)
United States v. Misla-Aldarondo, 478 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2007) (collecting on money judgments; substitution-assets considerations noted)
United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983) (due process in delay of forfeiture proceedings; meaningful time)
Browder v. Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257 (1978) (contextual comparison on post-judgment relief)
Rodriguez-Antuna v. Chase Manhattan Bank Corp., 871 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989) (res judicata/appeal-procedure principles in post-judgment matters)