Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Honeycutt v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Honeycutt v. United States
Reference: 16-142
Issue: Conspiracy
Term: 2016
Important Dates
Argued: March 29, 2017
Decided: June 5, 2017
Outcome
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
Vote
8-0 to reverse
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan


Honeycutt v. United States is a case argued during the October 2016 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on March 29, 2017. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. On June 5, 2017, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court reversed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In this case, the court held that the federal law mandating civil forfeiture of "any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of" certain drug crimes, 21 U.S.C. §853, does not require forfeiture of property or proceeds that an alleged co-conspirator did not personally acquire. In legal terms, the court held that joint and several liability does not apply to criminal co-conspirators who do not receive property obtained in violation of 21 U.S.C. §853.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Honeycutt was convicted as a co-conspirator in a drug conspiracy with his brother. At sentencing, the court declined to order forfeiture of proceeds from Honeycutt based on evidence that Honeycutt never personally enjoyed the proceeds of the conspiracy. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that federal law required forfeiture of proceeds from any member of the conspiracy; that is, the conspirators were both jointly and severally liable.
  • The issue: Is joint and several liability required for forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §853?
  • The outcome: On June 5, 2017, the court reversed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.


    • In brief: At sentencing for his convictions under federal law for his role in a drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. §853, a district court declined to order forfeiture of proceeds from the defendant, arguing that the defendant never personally benefited from the proceeds of the conspiracy. The government appealed, and a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed, holding the district court erred in declining to order forfeiture. The circuit court held that federal law can require forfeiture of proceeds obtained in a drug conspiracy from any of the co-conspirators, even if not all of the conspirators directly or indirectly obtained any proceeds from the conspiracy. In legal terms, the panel held that joint and several liability applied to forfeiture of proceeds obtained in violation of 21 U.S.C. §853. Argument in the case was held on March 29, 2017.

    You can review the Sixth Circuit's opinion here.[2]

    Click on the tabs below to learn more about this Supreme Court case.

    Case

    Background

    This was a case about whether federal law can require forfeiture of proceeds obtained in a drug conspiracy from any of the co-conspirators, even if not all of the conspirators directly or indirectly obtained any proceeds from the conspiracy. In legal terms, does joint and several liability apply to forfeiture of proceeds obtained in violation of 21 U.S.C. §853?

    Terry Honeycutt was a salaried employee at the Brainerd Army Store in Brainerd, Tennessee. The store was owned by Honeycutt's brother, Tony. In 2008, Honeycutt alerted police in Chattanooga, Tennessee, to an increasing number of sales of an iodine-based water purification product called Polar Pure. Honeycutt was told that the iodine in Polar Pure was being used to manufacture methamphetamine. The police officer with whom Honeycutt spoke alerted the department and the Drug Enforcement Administration that Honeycutt was selling Polar Pure. In 2009, the DEA, state, and local law enforcement began investigating sales of Polar Pure at the store. In 2010, a search warrant was executed. Subsequent to executing that warrant, the brothers were arrested and charged with a number of drug-related crimes, including conspiracy. Tony pleaded guilty, but Terry Honeycutt went to trial on the charges. At trial, Honeycutt was convicted on 11 of 14 counts. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 60 months' imprisonment on each count. On appeal before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court held that the sentence on three of his convictions under 21 U.S.C. §843(a)(6) exceeded the federal maximum and remanded the case to district court to enter a sentence consistent with the statutory maximum.[2]

    This case, however, turns on the district court's declining to order forfeiture under applicable federal law. 21 U.S.C. §853(a)(1) states, "Any person convicted of a violation of this subchapter or subchapter II punishable by imprisonment for more than one year shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation." The district court noted that forfeiture was mandated under the statute, but declined to order forfeiture. According to the Sixth Circuit's opinion, the district court declined to order forfeiture for a number of reasons. The district court found that "(1) although 'there was a criminal conspiracy being operated out of the Brainerd Army Store ... the Brainerd Army Store itself was [not] a criminal enterprise'; (2) 'at least some of th[e] Polar Pure was sold for legal purposes ... [and] there is no evidence that would permit the Court to make a reasoned assessment of what percentage of that Polar Pure was due to illegal activity'; and (3) as 'a salaried employee,' the district court could not 'say that [Honeycutt] personally ... profited from th[e] illegal conspiracy.'"[2]

    The government appealed the district court's decision not to order forfeiture. While the Sixth Circuit noted that there was a split among federal appeals courts as to whether conspirators are jointly and severally liable for the purposes of asset forfeiture in a drug conspiracy, and that the Sixth Circuit had itself never directly ruled on this precise issue, the circuit cited its own precedent in United States v. Corrado in holding that the district court erred in declining to order forfeiture.[2]

    According to the circuit panel's opinion,[2]

    “

    In United States v. Corrado, ... we determined that 'coconspirators in a RICO enterprise should be held jointly and severally liable for any proceeds of the conspiracy.' ... Echoing the rationale of sister circuits that had so concluded, we held that '[t]he government is not required to prove the specific portion of proceeds for which each defendant is responsible. Such a requirement would allow defendants ‘to mask the allocation of the proceeds to avoid forfeiting them altogether.' ... Although Corrado did not specifically concern §853, the relevant language and structure of the two statute’s forfeiture provisions are virtually identical: both contain the mandatory 'shall forfeit' phrasing; both demand the forfeiture of 'any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds [that] the person obtained, directly or indirectly,' as result of the violation; and both dictate that their provisions 'shall be liberally construed to effectuate [their] purposes.' ... We find that our holding and rationale in Corrado carries equal weight in the §853 context. [3]

    		”

    Petitioner's challenge

    Terry Michael Honeycutt, the petitioner, challenged the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit that 21 U.S.C. §853 mandates joint and several liability for forfeiture of proceeds obtained from a drug conspiracy.

    Certiorari granted

    On July 29, 2016, Terry Michael Honeycutt, the petitioner, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Honeycutt's certiorari request on December 9, 2016. Argument in the case was held on March 29, 2017.

    Arguments


    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "Under 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(l), a person convicted of violating a federal drug law must forfeit to the government 'any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation.' The question presented is:
    Does 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(l) mandate joint and several liability among co-conspirators for forfeiture of the reasonably foreseeable proceeds of a drug conspiracy?"[4]


    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    Decision

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court. In this case, the court held that the federal law mandating civil forfeiture of "any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of" certain drug crimes, 21 U.S.C. §853, does not require forfeiture of property or proceeds that an alleged co-conspirator did not personally acquire. In legal terms, the court held that joint and several liability does not apply to criminal co-conspirators who do not receive property obtained in violation of 21 U.S.C. §853.[1]

    Opinion

    In her opinion for the court, Justice Sotomayor used an example of a college student to explain the court's ruling. She wrote,[1]

    “

    Suppose a farmer masterminds a scheme to grow, harvest, and distribute marijuana on local college campuses. The mastermind recruits a college student to deliver packages and pays the student $300 each month from the distribution proceeds for his services. In one year, the mastermind earns $3 million. The student, meanwhile, earns $3,600. If joint and several liability applied, the student would face a forfeiture judgment for the entire amount of the conspiracy’s proceeds: $3 million. The student would be bound by that judgment even though he never personally acquired any proceeds beyond the $3,600. ...
    First, the provision at issue here, §853(a)(1), limits forfeiture to 'property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of' the crime. Second, §853(a)(2) restricts forfeiture to 'property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of,' the crime. Finally, §853(a)(3) applies to persons 'convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise'—a form of conspiracy—and requires forfeiture of 'property described in paragraph (1) or (2)' as well as 'any of [the defendant’s] interest in, claims against, and property or contractual rights affording a source of control over, the continuing criminal enterprise.' These provisions, by their terms, limit forfeiture under §853 to tainted property; that is, property flowing from (§853(a)(1)), or used in (§853(a)(2)), the crime itself. ...
    Recall, for example, the college student from the earlier hypothetical. The $3,600 he received for his part in the marijuana distribution scheme clearly falls within §853(a)(1): It is property he 'obtained ... as the result of' the crime. But if he were held jointly and severally liable for the proceeds of the entire conspiracy, he would owe the Government $3 million. Of the $3 million, $2,996,400 would have no connection whatsoever to the student’s participation in the crime and would have to be paid from the student’s untainted assets. Joint and several liability would thus represent a departure from §853(a)’s restriction of forfeiture to tainted property. [3]

    		”

    As the Sixth Circuit ruled in opposition to this holding, the court reversed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Concurring opinions

    There were no concurring opinions filed in this case.

    Dissenting opinions

    There were no dissenting opinions filed in this case.

    The opinion


    Filings

    The U.S. Supreme Court granted Honeycutt's certiorari request on December 9, 2016.

    Merits filings

    Parties' briefs

    • Terry Michael Honeycutt, the petitioner, filed a merits brief on January 23, 2017.
    • The United States of America, the respondent, filed a merits brief on February 22, 2017.

    Amicus briefs

    The following group filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the petitioner, Terry Michael Honeycutt:

    • Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

    Certiorari filings

    Parties' filings

    • Terry Michael Honeycutt, the petitioner, filed a petition for certiorari on July 29, 2016.
    • The United States of America, the respondent, filed a brief in opposition to certiorari on October 31, 2016, pursuant to two orders extending the time to file the petition.


    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Terry Michael Honeycutt v. United States, decided June 5, 2017
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, United States of America v. Terry Michael Honeycutt, filed March 4, 2016
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    4. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Honeycutt v. United States, December 9, 2016
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Honeycutt v. United States, argued March 29, 2017
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Honeycutt v. United States, argued March 29, 2017
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Honeycutt_v._United_States&oldid=8891790"