United States v. Michael David Casey, United States of America v. Michael David Casey

How courts have described this case

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

• referring to criminal forfeiture as “the mandatory forfeiture sanction Congress intended”
• “We disagree that allowing money judgments in forfeiture cases erases the distinctions between fines and forfeitures.”
• “We are satisfied that money judgments will advance the purposes of the [CFA] in combating the illegal drug trade and punishing those involved in it.”
• if the defendant is insolvent at the time of sentencing, the court must impose a money judgment that remains in effect until it is satisfied
• “Because we hold that the government is entitled to a money judgment in criminal forfeiture cases, even when a defendant has no assets, the district court erred by refusing to enter the requested money judgment against [the defendant].”
• discussing in personam nature of money judgment forfeitures

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).