United States v. Capoccia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the court may establish forfeitability of seized assets based not only on evidence adduced during his trial, but also on evidence adduced at defendant’s forfeiture hearing
• stating that, “[w]here the conviction itself is for executing a scheme, engaging in a conspiracy, or conducting a racketeering enterprise,” the proceeds for purposes of forfeiture include the proceeds of “that scheme, conspiracy, or enterprise”
• finding that the court can consider trial evidence, including agent’s testimony, in determining forfeiture
• “Sentencing courts determine forfeiture amounts by a preponderance of the evidence.”
• “The violation on which the forfeiture is based must be the specific violations of which [a defendant] was convicted, not some other, separate [] violations.”
• “Where the conviction itself is for executing a scheme, engaging in a conspiracy, or conducting a racketeering enterprise, the government need only establish that the forfeited assets have the ‘requisite nexus,’ Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2(b)(1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).