U.S.S.G. § 5E1.4
Forfeiture
Forfeiture is to be imposed upon a convicted defendant as provided by statute.
Commentary
Background: Forfeiture provisions exist in various statutes. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 3554 requires the court imposing a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (proscribing the use of the proceeds of racketeering activities in the operation of an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce) or titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (proscribing the manufacture and distribution of controlled substances) to order the forfeiture of property in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1963 and 21 U.S.C. § 853, respectively. Those provisions require the automatic forfeiture of certain property upon conviction of their respective underlying offenses.In addition, the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3681–3682 authorizes the court, in certain circumstances, to order the forfeiture of a violent criminal's proceeds from the depiction of his crime in a book, movie, or other medium. Those sections authorize the deposit of proceeds in an escrow account in the Crime Victims Fund of the United States Treasury. The money is to remain available in the account for five years to satisfy claims brought against the defendant by the victim(s) of his offenses. At the end of the five-year period, the court may require that any proceeds remaining in the account be released from escrow and paid into the Fund. 18 U.S.C. § 3681(c)(2).
Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendment 302); November 1, 2023 (amendment 824).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: United States v. Browne, 505 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Browne, 505 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2007). “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.4. The commentary then lists the various statutes, including 18 U.”
United States v. Christopher B. Messino, Christopher R. Messino, & Clement A. Messino, 382 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2004). “3d at 673 ; U.S.S.G. § 5E1.4; 21 U.S.C. § 853 . Therefore, we conclude that Blakely, like Apprendi, does not apply to forfeiture proceedings.”
United States v. Lewis Weinberger, 91 F.3d 642 (4th Cir. 1996). “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.4. As both the Third and the Ninth Circuit have concluded, this section makes apparent that “the Commission considered forfeiture when creating the guideline ranges for terms of imprisonment.”
United States v. Joyce C. \Joy\" Hall", 411 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2005). “” See U.S.S.G. § 5E1.4. And while Booker (and Blakely v.”
United States v. Hoffer, 129 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 1997). “The Commission’s decision indicates that civil forfeiture is relevant only to the possible monetary sanctions which may flow from a criminal conviction, but it has no bearing on a convicted defendant’s term of incarceration.”
United States v. Malewicka, 664 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2011). “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.4. Malewicka was convicted of twenty-three separate violations of § 5324(a)(3).”
United States v. Real Prop. Located at 6625 Zumirez Drive, 845 F. Supp. 725 (C.D. Cal. 1994). “as provided by statute’ [USSG § 5E1.4] to mean that the Commission viewed monetary forfeiture as entirely distinct from the issue of imprisonment.”
United States v. Coddington, 118 F.3d 1439 (10th Cir. 1997). “USSG § 5E1.4 provides that “[fjorfeiture is to be imposed on a convicted defendant as provided by statute.”
United States v. Nichols, 376 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2004). “In addition, the guidelines contemplate civil forfeiture as a relevant factor when setting or reducing applicable fines, but make no such mention of the factor in the departure context. See U.S.”
United States v. James Dierker, 417 F. App'x 515 (6th Cir. 2011). “§ 981 (a)(1)(C), the following is subject to forfeiture: Any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of section 215, 471, 472, 473, 474, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 485, 486, 487, 488, 501, 502, 510, 542, 545, 656,…”
United States v. Lyons, 870 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D. Mass. 2012). “See U.S.S.G. § 5E1.4 (“Forfeiture is to be imposed upon a convicted defendant as provided by statute.”
United States v. Elias (2d Cir. 2025). “See U.S.S.G. § 5E1.4 cmt. background (noting several criminal forfeiture statutes).”
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.4(d)(5) — 2 cases
United States v. Hoffer, 129 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 1997). “The Commission’s decision indicates that civil forfeiture is relevant only to the possible monetary sanctions which may flow from a criminal conviction, but it has no bearing on a convicted defendant’s term of incarceration.”
United States v. Hoffer, 129 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 1997).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.