18 U.S.C. § 3554
Order of criminal forfeiture
The court, in imposing a sentence on a defendant who has been found guilty of an offense described in section 1962 of this title or in title II or III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 shall order, in addition to the sentence that is imposed pursuant to the provisions of section 3551, that the defendant forfeit property to the United States in accordance with the provisions of section 1963 of this title or section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act of 1970.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: United States v. Michael Gilbert, Karen Gilbert, Michael Gilbert Fam. Irrevocable Trust, Third Party Claimants-Appellees, 244 F.3d 888 (3d Cir. 2001).
United States v. Michael Gilbert, Karen Gilbert, Michael Gilbert Fam. Irrevocable Trust, Third Party Claimants-Appellees, 244 F.3d 888 (3d Cir. 2001). “18 U.S.C. § 3554 ; 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (e); Fed.”
United States v. Andre Pease, a.k.a., Magic, Beverly Reedy, Latoya Pease, 331 F.3d 809 (11th Cir. 2003). “§ 853 (a); 18 U.S.C. § 3554 ; Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2. 1 Once the defendant’s interest in the subject property is forfeited by the entry of a final judgment, any person (other than the convicted defendant) claiming an interest in the property may commence an ancillary proceeding in…”
United States v. Abdurahman M. Alamoudi, 452 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2006). “In fact, in Booker itself, the Court explicitly exempted from its holding forfeitures imposed under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3554 . See Booker, 543 U.S.”
United States v. Carmichael, 343 F.3d 756 (5th Cir. 2003). “”); 18 U.S.C. § 3554 (“The court, in imposing a sentence on a defendant who has been found guilty of [certain offenses,] shall order .”
United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2011). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3554 (“The court ... shall order, in addition to the sentence that is imposed pursuant to the provisions of section 3551, that the defendant forfeit property to the United States.”
United States v. Mark Phillips, 704 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2012). “In fact, “Booker itself expressly states that” the section of the RICO statute that permits forfeiture ( 18 U.S.C. § 3554 ) “is still valid.” Fruchter, 411 F.”
United States v. Thomas James Hively, Also Known as T.J. Hively, United States of Am. v. Wesley John Ketz, 437 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2006). “Since Booker specifically referred to the forfeiture provision of the Sentencing Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3554 , which incorporates the relevant provisions of § 1963, as “perfectly valid,” 125 S.”
United States v. Richard A. Ginsburg, 773 F.2d 798 (7th Cir. 1985). “Congress replaced section 3563 with 18 U.S.C. § 3554 which permits forfeiture in accordance with RICO, 18 U.”
Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. George Edwards, 903 F.2d 267 (3d Cir. 1990). “, 18 U.S.C. § 3554 (Supp. II 1984), none of which are applicable here.”
United States v. Singletary, 649 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2011). “§ 853 (a) and 18 U.S.C. § 3554 , and the restitution noted in the text was imposed pursuant to 18 U.”
United States v. Tomo Razmilovic, David E. Nachman, Kenneth Jaeggi, Movant-Appellant, 419 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2005). “§ 333 (e)(3) (distribution of human growth hormone considered a felony violation of Controlled Substances Act “for the purposes of forfeiture under” Section 853); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3554 (forfeiture mandatory for RICO and drug crimes, using provisions of 18 U.”
United States v. Concepcion, 795 F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.N.Y 1992). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3554 (forfeiture order); id. § 3555 (order of notice to victim); id.”
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.