United States v. Samuel Davis

Opinion by Judge WALLACE; Concurrence by Judge BERZON.

OPINION

Davis appeals from the portion of his sentence that imposes forfeiture and restitution. Davis pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and thirty counts of money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (h) and aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(3)(A). He was ordered to forfeit $1.29 million and also to pay about $95,000 in restitution to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for funds expended in the operation that led to his arrest. On appeal, he argues that requiring him to pay both restitution and forfeiture will result in an impermissible double recovery for the government. He therefore requests that his forfeiture amount be offset by his restitution amount. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I.

Undercover FBI agents asked Davis to help them launder money, which they represented was stolen from Wachovia Bank. Davis received the money and engaged in various financial transactions intended to conceal the nature and source of the “stolen money.” He took a percentage of the funds as compensation. After working alone for several months, he enlisted the…

joins, concurring:

I concur in the court’s opinion. I write separately to note the narrowness of our holding.

The purpose of criminal forfeiture is to force guilty defendants to “disgorge their ill-gotten gains.” United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235, 1243 (9th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). To that end, Congress has articulated a broad conception of what “gains” may be subject to a court’s forfeiture order. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 853 (a) (defining “[pjroperty subject to criminal forfeiture” as “(1) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation,” or “(2) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.”); 18 U.S.C. § 981 (a)(1) (defining property “subject to forfeiture” to include “[a]ny property ... involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of section 1956 ... or any property traceable to such property,” and “[a]ny property ... which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to [such offense]”); id. § 982(a)(1) (requiring courts to order persons…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , No. 11-10584 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:09-cr-00078-

JCM-RJJ-

SAMUEL DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant. OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 11, 2012—San Francisco, California

Filed February 1, 2013

Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Sidney R. Thomas, and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Wallace; Concurrence by Judge Berzon UNITED STATES V . DAVIS

SUMMARY*

Criminal Law

The panel affirmed the district court’s order requiring the defendant, who was convicted of conspiracy and money laundering, to forfeit $1.29 million and to pay about $95,000 in restitution to the FBI for funds expended in the operation that led to the defendant’s arrest.

The panel rejected the defendant’s argument that the forfeiture amount should be offset by his restitution amount to avoid a double recovery by the government. The panel held that even if the same government entity will receive both forfeiture…