United States v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3237 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 851 (§ 411 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Olano · Hyde v. United States · Hyde v. United States · United States, v. Jacinto Rodriguez-Moreno · United States v. Cabrales
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Mitchell was clearly on notice of the pending forfeiture through the indictment, the bill of particulars, and the preliminary order of forfeiture. However, at no point did Mitchell or his counsel raise an objection or respond to the pending forfeiture. Further, Mitchell did not raise the issue of forfeiture during his sentencing hearing. While the record indicates that the forfeiture was not made part of the sentence and was not included in the judgment, Mitchell was on notice and had ample opportunity to challenge the forfeiture. Mitchell has not put forth any evidence that would indicate that the more than $2,000,000 in forfeited money and property was anything other than proceeds derived from illegal drug activity. Therefore, under the specific facts of this case, the failure to incorporate the forfeiture order into the judgment of conviction and sentence was simply a ministerial error....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under [Rule 32.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure], the court shall not enter a judgment of forfeiture unless the defendant first receives notice that the government will seek forfeiture of property as part of any sentence. Second, [under Rule 32.2(b)(1) and (b)(2),] the court must determine, as soon as is practicable following a finding of guilt on the substantive charges, what property is subject to forfeiture, and enter a preliminary order of forfeiture. Third, [under Rule 32.2(b)(3),] ... at sentencing — or at any time before sentencing if the defendant consents — the order of forfeiture becomes final as to the defendant and must be made a part of the sentence and be included in the judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]t sentencing, this preliminary order of forfeiture became a final order pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(3),” although forfeiture was not actually mentioned at sentencing. This language might suggest that the preliminary order became final automatically when sentence was imposed. But the court decided the case on other grounds, finding that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.