Brief filed: 04/15/2019
United States v. Valdez
9th Circuit Court of Appeals; Case No. 17-10446
Panel decision 911 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2018)
The panel’s decision is inconsistent with background principles of forfeiture, congressional intent, Supreme Court precedent, and constitutional limitations. Neither Section 924(D) nor Section 853(P) permits entry of a money judgment as “substitute property” subject to forfeiture
Joshua M. Koppel and Anuradha Sivaram. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC; Sharon Cohen Levin, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY.