United States v. McIntosh

58 F.4th 606

Opinion

14-1908-cr United States v. McIntosh

2 In the 3 United States Court of Appeals 4 For the Second Circuit 5 ________ 6 7 AUGUST TERM 2020 8 9 ARGUED: OCTOBER 15, 2020 10 DECIDED: JANUARY 31, 2022 11 12 Nos. 14-1908, 14-3922, 17-2623 13 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Appellee-Cross-Appellant, 16 17 v. 18 19 LOUIS MCINTOSH, AKA Lou D, AKA Lou Diamond, AKA G, 20 Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 21 22 EDWARD RAMIREZ, AKA Taz, TERRENCE DUHANEY, AKA Bounty 23 Killer, TURHAN JESSAMY, AKA Vay, QUINCY WILLIAMS, AKA 24 Capone, TYRELL ROCK, AKA Smurf, NEIL MORGAN, AKA Steely, 25 Defendants. 26 ________ 27 28 Appeal from the United States District Court 29 for the Southern District of New York. 30 ________ 31 32 Before: WALKER, LOHIER, Circuit Judges, and STANCEU, Judge. *

* Senior Judge Timothy C. Stanceu, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 2 No. 14-1908-cr

1 ________ 2 Louis McIntosh appeals various issues arising from his 2017 3 amended judgment of conviction for Hobbs Act robbery and firearm 4 offenses in the Southern District of New York (Sidney H. Stein, J.). In 5 this opinion, we address two of McIntosh’s arguments—first, that the 6 order of forfeiture entered against him should be vacated because the 7 district court failed to enter a preliminary order prior to sentencing, 8 as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(B); 9 second, that he was improperly convicted of possessing firearms as a 10 felon, Counts Twelve through Fourteen, because the government did 11 not prove that he knew that he was a felon. As to these issues, we 12 AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. We address his remaining 13 arguments in a separate summary order filed concurrently with this 14 opinion.

15 ________ 16 17 STEVEN YUROWITZ, Newman & Greenberg LLP, 18 New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant-Cross- 19 Appellee Louis McIntosh.

20 SARAH KRISSOFF, Assistant United States Attorney 21 (Thomas McKay, Assistant United States 22 Attorney, on the brief), for Geoffrey S. Berman, 23 United States Attorney for the Southern District of 24 New York, New York, NY, for Appellee-Cross- 25 Appellant United States of America.

26 ________

27 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Circuit Judge:

28 Louis McIntosh appeals various issues arising from his 2017 29 amended judgment of conviction for Hobbs Act robbery and firearm 30 offenses in the Southern District of New York (Sidney H. Stein, J.). In 31 this opinion, we address two of McIntosh’s arguments—first, that the 3 No. 14-1908-cr

1 order of forfeiture entered against him should be vacated because the 2 district court failed to enter a preliminary order prior to sentencing, 3 as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(B); 4 second, that he was improperly convicted of possessing firearms as a 5 felon, Counts Twelve through Fourteen, because the government did 6 not prove that he knew that he was a felon. As to these issues, we 7 AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. We address his remaining 8 arguments in a separate summary order filed concurrently with this 9 opinion.

10 BACKGROUND

11 In 2011, Appellant Louis McIntosh and several others were 12 indicted on multiple counts of Hobbs Act robbery and related 13 firearms charges. The charges arose from a series of violent robberies 14 and attempted robberies that occurred between 2009 and 2011. The 15 indictment contained a forfeiture allegation, consistent with 18 U.S.C. 16 § 98l(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), requiring the forfeiture of all 17 proceeds and property resulting from the offenses.

18 In August 2013, a jury in the Southern District of New York 19 convicted McIntosh on all counts. 1 The district court sentenced 20 McIntosh to 720 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised 21 release. The district court also ordered McIntosh to pay restitution 22 and to forfeit $75,000 and a BMW that McIntosh had purchased with 23 robbery proceeds.

24 Before imposing forfeiture, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 25 32.2(b) requires the district court to “promptly enter a preliminary 26 order of forfeiture setting forth the amount of any money judgment

1After jury deliberations, the district court directed a judgment of acquittal on two counts. The district court’s order as to those counts has no bearing on the issues discussed in this opinion. 4 No. 14-1908-cr

1 . . . [and] directing the forfeiture of specific property.” 2 “Unless doing 2 so is impractical,” this preliminary order “must” be entered 3 “sufficiently in advance of sentencing to allow the parties to suggest 4 revisions or modifications before the order becomes final.” 3 The 5 preliminary order becomes final at sentencing and must be included 6 in the judgment. 4

7 In this case, the district court did not enter a preliminary order 8 prior to sentencing, apparently because the government did not 9 submit a proposed order. At sentencing, after verbally ordering 10 forfeiture, the district court instructed the government to propose a 11 formal order of forfeiture within one week, which the government 12 also failed to do. As a result, no written order of forfeiture was 13 entered.

14 After the entry of judgment, McIntosh timely appealed. In 15 2016, on the government’s unopposed motion, we remanded the case 16 pursuant to United States v. Jacobson 5 and instructed the government, 17 if it wished to pursue forfeiture, to ask the district court to enter a 18 formal order of forfeiture. The government then filed a proposed 19 order, and McIntosh raised several challenges in response.

20 On August 8, 2017, the district court denied McIntosh’s 21 objections and entered a preliminary order for forfeiture. The order 22 required McIntosh to pay $75,000 in forfeiture and to turn over the 23 BMW, with funds from the sale of the car being credited against the

2 Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(A). 3 Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(B). 4 Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(A)-(B). 5 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1994). 5 No. 14-1908-cr

1 $75,000. 6 The order was included in an amended judgment filed the 2 same day. McIntosh timely appealed the amended judgment.

3 DISCUSSION

4 I

5 On appeal, McIntosh challenges the forfeiture order, which he 6 says should be vacated because the district court failed to enter a 7 preliminary forfeiture order before sentencing, as required by Federal 8 Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(B). We disagree.

9 Nothing in the federal rules sets forth the consequences of a 10 failure by the district court to issue the preliminary order prior to 11 sentencing. We find the Supreme Court’s decision in Dolan v. United 12 States, however, to be instructive. 7 There, in a restitution case, the 13 Supreme Court laid out a framework for analyzing “the consequences 14 of [a] missed deadline” when not specified in the relevant statute. 8 15 The Court described three kinds of deadlines: “jurisdictional rules” 16 that present an absolute prohibition; “claims-processing rules” that 17 can bar certain actions but also may be waived; and “time-related 18 directives” that are “legally enforceable but [do] not deprive a judge 19 or other public official of the power to take the action to which the 20 deadline applies if the deadline is missed.” 9

21 The Dolan Court concluded that a 90-day statutory deadline to 22 order restitution was a time-related directive. The Court considered

In our accompanying summary order, we vacate the $75,000 restitution 6

on other grounds and remand the case to the district court for recalculation. 7 560 U.S. 605 (2010). 8 Id. at 610. 9 Id. at 610-11. 6 No. 14-1908-cr

1 a number of relevant circumstances. It stated that when “a statute 2 does not specify a consequence for noncompliance with its timing 3 provisions, federal courts will not in the ordinary course impose their 4 own coercive sanction.” 10 It examined the text and structure of the 5 statute and determined that the deadline “is primarily designed to 6 help victims of crime secure prompt restitution rather than to provide 7 defendants with certainty as to the amount of their liability.” 11 The 8 Court was mindful that preventing restitution would harm victims, 9 “who likely bear no responsibility for the deadline’s being missed and 10 whom the statute also seeks to benefit.” 12 This suggested that the 11 deadline is not meant to be a firm prohibition. The Court also cited 12 other cases in which deadlines were interpreted flexibly in order to 13 preserve their purpose or to avoid disproportionally benefiting 14 convicted defendants. 13 Finally, it noted that defendants who wished 15 to avoid delay were always free to remind the district court of the 16 statutory deadline. 14 Taken together, these circumstances led the 17 Supreme Court to conclude that the restitution deadline is a time- 18 related directive. As a result, so long as the district court makes clear 19 prior to the deadline expiring that it intends to impose restitution, “a 20 sentencing court that misses the 90–day deadline nonetheless retains 21 the power to order restitution.” 15

22 We think the considerations that pertained to the restitution 23 order in Dolan similarly apply to the Rule 32.2(b) deadline for

10 Id. at 611 (internal quotation marks omitted). 11 Id. at 613. 12 Id. at 613-14. 13 Id. at 614-15. 14 Id. at 616. 15 Id. at 608. 7 No. 14-1908-cr

1 forfeiture. The Fourth Circuit adopted this view a year after Dolan 2 when, in United States v. Martin, it applied Dolan’s considerations to a 3 previous version of Rule 32.2(b) and found its deadline to be a time- 4 related directive. 16 For several reasons, we agree with the reasoning 5 in Martin and believe it applies with equal force to the current version 6 of the rule.

7 First, Rule 32.2 “does not specify a consequence for 8 noncompliance with its timing provisions.” 17 Second, the Federal 9 Rules Advisory Committee’s notes on the revised rule make clear that 10 the deadline to enter the preliminary order is intended to give the 11 parties time “to advise the court of omissions or errors in the order 12 before it becomes final” because there is limited opportunity to do so 13 after judgment is finalized. 18 At the same time, the comments make 14 no mention of an interest in giving defendants certainty as to the 15 amount to be forfeited before sentencing. This focus on accuracy, not 16 the defendant’s repose, is consistent with the substantive purpose of 17 forfeiture, which is to “deprive criminals of the fruits of their illegal 18 acts and deter future crimes.” 19 Third, because forfeited funds 19 frequently go to the victims of the crime, preventing forfeiture due to 20 the missed deadline would tend to harm innocent people who are not 21 responsible for the oversight. 20 Fourth, consistent with examples 22 cited in Dolan, interpreting the deadline rigidly here would 23 disproportionately benefit defendants. And finally, as in Dolan, a 24 defendant concerned about possible delays or mistakes can remind

16 662 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2011). 17 Dolan, 560 U.S. at 611 (internal quotation marks omitted). 18 Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b) advisory committee’s note to 2009 amendment. 19 Martin, 662 F.3d at 309. 20 Id. 8 No. 14-1908-cr

1 the district court of the preliminary order requirement any time 2 before sentencing.

3 Our analysis is reinforced by the decisions of sister circuits that 4 have also found the Rule 32.2(b) deadline to be non-jurisdictional. 21 5 Thus, we conclude that Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B) is a time-related directive. 6 Accordingly, the district court’s failure to enter a preliminary order in 7 time does not render the forfeiture invalid.

8 McIntosh raises several counterarguments, none of which are 9 persuasive. He cites an Eleventh Circuit case for the proposition that 10 “strict compliance with the letter of the law by those seeking forfeiture 11 must be required.” 22 But Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B) governs the conduct of the 12 district court, not the litigants. The issue here is whether the district 13 court had the authority to enter the order despite its failure to comply 14 with the timing requirements, not whether the government should 15 have been more diligent. Even if the government bears some 16 responsibility for the mistake, Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B)’s status as a time- 17 related directive means that it is not a fatal one.

18 McIntosh also asserts that forfeiture is unlike restitution, which 19 was at issue in Dolan, because restitution is intended to assist the 20 victims of crimes. It is true that forfeiture and restitution serve 21 different purposes: restitution is for “remediating a loss,” while 22 forfeiture is for “disgorging a gain.” 23 But that distinction is less 23 material here. Forfeiture also serves other important purposes, and 24 we see no reason why, for purposes of timing, restitution and

21See United States v. Carman, 933 F.3d 614, 617 (6th Cir. 2019); United States v. Cereceres, 771 F. App’x 803, 804 (9th Cir. 2019); United States v. Farias, 836 F.3d 1315, 1330 (11th Cir. 2016). 22United States v. $38,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 816 F.2d 1538, 1547 (11th Cir. 1987). 23 United States v. Torres, 703 F.3d 194, 196 (2d Cir. 2012). 9 No. 14-1908-cr

1 forfeiture should be treated differently under these circumstances.

2 McIntosh next argues that he was prejudiced by the delay 3 because his BMW lost value while the forfeiture issue was litigated. 24 4 But McIntosh knew that the district court would order forfeiture, and 5 as the district court pointed out, he could have sought an 6 interlocutory sale of the car if he had wished to preserve its value. 7 Doing so would have been consistent with the structure of the rule, 8 which permits the sale of property prior to sentencing but only with 9 the defendant’s consent. 25 McIntosh also argues that the government 10 alone is responsible for preserving the value of seized assets, but for 11 support he cites only to an inapposite customs statute. 26 McIntosh has 12 not demonstrated prejudice sufficient to void the forfeiture order.

13 McIntosh also points to the structure of Rule 32.2 to argue that 14 the preliminary order deadline must be interpreted strictly. Should 15 the court forget to include the forfeiture order in the final judgment, 16 Rule 32.2(b)(4)(B) permits the judgment to be corrected under Rule 36, 17 which governs the correction of clerical errors. From this provision, 18 McIntosh infers that all the other requirements of the rule, which do 19 not have related correction provisions, are strictly enforceable. But 20 Rule 32.2(b)(4)(B) simply makes clear that forgetting to incorporate 21 the order in the final judgment is a clerical error and should be treated 22 as such. It sheds no light on the treatment of procedural errors. 23 Indeed, the statute at issue in Dolan similarly stated that a sentence

See United States v. Qurashi, 634 F.3d 699, 705 (2d Cir. 2011) (noting that 24

Dolan permits us to take into account claimed prejudices resulting from delays).

Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(A); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b) advisory 25

committee’s note to 2000 amendment.

19 U.S.C. § 1612 (requiring the prompt sale of property seized under 26

customs law). 10 No. 14-1908-cr

1 containing an order of restitution can “subsequently be . . . corrected 2 under Rule 35.” 27 This provision, however, did not transform the 3 statute’s other requirements into ironclad limits, and neither does 4 reference to Rule 36 in Rule 32.2(b)(4)(B) do so here.

5 Finally, we reject McIntosh’s claim that he should be credited 6 for the value of the BMW at the time it was seized, not its eventual 7 sale price. He cites no authority directly supporting this point, 8 instead relying on statutes that require the government or courts to 9 preserve the value of seized assets. The statutes he cites deal with 10 protecting the interests of lienholders and others with claims on the 11 property, not the individual subject to the forfeiture order. 28 Crediting 12 defendants for property depreciation that occurred during litigation 13 and which defendants could likely prevent by requesting a sale 14 would, in most cases, undermine forfeiture’s deterrent value and 15 possibly shortchange victims.

16 II

17 McIntosh also contests his convictions on Counts Twelve 18 through Fourteen for possessing a firearm as a felon. At trial, 19 McIntosh stipulated that he had been convicted of a crime punishable 20 by a year or more in prison, but the stipulation did not state that he 21 was aware of this fact when he possessed the firearms. The 22 government, meanwhile, offered no evidence suggesting that 23 McIntosh was aware of his felon status, but McIntosh did not object.

24 In Rehaif v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the 25 relevant statutes required the government to show “that the 26 defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had

27 18 U.S.C. § 3664(o)(1)(A).

See 19 U.S.C. § 1612; Fed R. Civ. P., Supp. Rule G(7)(b); 18 U.S.C. 28

§ 981(g)(6). 11 No. 14-1908-cr

1 the relevant [felon] status when he possessed it.” 29 On appeal, 2 McIntosh argues that the district court committed plain error when it 3 failed to instruct the jury about the knowledge element of these 4 counts. Plain error arises when, among other requirements, “there is 5 a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the 6 trial.” 30

7 McIntosh’s argument is foreclosed by the recent Supreme 8 Court decision Greer v. United States. 31 In Greer, the Supreme Court 9 held that, to establish plain error under Rehaif, a defendant must 10 “make an adequate showing on appeal that he would have presented 11 evidence in the district court that he did not in fact know he was a 12 felon when he possessed firearms.” 32 McIntosh has offered no such 13 evidence. Consequently, we have “no basis to conclude that there is 14 a ‘reasonable probability’ that the outcome would have been different 15 absent the Rehaif error,” and so we cannot find plain error. 33

16 McIntosh argues that the district court’s failure to instruct the 17 jury on the point should, on its own, be enough to establish plain 18 error. But Greer has made clear that “Rehaif errors fit comfortably 19 within the general rule that a constitutional error does not 20 automatically require reversal of a conviction.” 34 McIntosh “must

29 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2194 (2019).

United States v. Nouri, 711 F.3d 129, 139 (2d Cir. 2013) (quotation mark 30

omitted). 31 141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021). 32 Id. at 2097. 33 Id. 34 Id. at 2100 (quotation marks omitted). 12 No. 14-1908-cr

1 satisfy the ordinary plain-error test.” 35 He has not done so here, and 2 so we affirm the district court on Counts Twelve through Fourteen.

3 CONCLUSION

4 For the foregoing reasons, as to the issues discussed above, we 5 AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

35 Id.