Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ALFREDO BELTRAN LEYVA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CRIMINAL NO.: 12-CR-184 (RJL)

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE


The Government respectfully moves for a preliminary order of forfeiture as a result of the
Defendants conviction in the above-captioned case. For the reasons set forth below, the
Government respectfully requests an order in the amount of $10,000,000,000. Sentencing is
currently set for July 20, 2016 at 2:30 p.m.
I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1.

On August 24, 2012, a federal grand jury returned an Indictment charging the

Defendant Alfredo Beltran Leyva, also known as Mochomo (the Defendant), with
conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, fifty grams or more of
methamphetamine, one kilogram or more of heroin and one thousand kilograms or more of
marijuana for importation into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 959(a),
960(b)(1)(B)(ii), 960(b)(1)(H) and 963 (hereinafter the Indictment). The charged conspiracy
occurred between January 2000 and August 2012.
2.

On January 21, 2008, the Defendant was arrested by Mexican authorities pursuant

to a Mexican investigation, which was not related to the instant case. On November 27, 2013,
1

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182 Filed 06/28/16 Page 2 of 14

the Government of Mexico (GOM) granted the Defendants extradition to the United States on
the sole count of the Indictment as it related to a cocaine and methamphetamine distribution
conspiracy, 1 without limitation as to the time frame of the conspiracy, and denied the
Defendants extradition as to the conspiracy relating to the trafficking of marijuana and heroin.
3.

On the event of trial, on February 23, 2016, the Defendant pleaded guilty to the

Indictment related to cocaine and methamphetamine, without a written plea agreement. The
Defendant is scheduled to be sentenced on July 20, 2016.
4.

As discussed in the Governments Sentencing Memorandum, the Governments

evidence establishes that between approximately January 2000 and August 2014, the Defendant
and his brothers Arturo Beltran Leyva (Arturo) and Hector Beltran Leyva (Hector) were the
leaders of the Beltran Leyva drug trafficking organization (DTO), which was based in Sinaloa,
Mexico. The Defendants DTO had an ongoing relationship with the Sinaloa Cartel, an organized
crime syndicate, since the 1990s. During and in furtherance of the conspiracy, the Defendants
DTO directed a large-scale narcotics transportation network involving the use of land, air and sea
transportation, which was responsible for the shipment of multi-ton quantities of cocaine from
South America, through Central America and Mexico, and eventually into the United States. The
Defendants DTO facilitated its cocaine shipments through a network of corrupt law enforcement
and political contacts located in Mexico and other countries. In addition to his responsibilities
with respect to cocaine shipments, the Defendant was also responsible for the production and
trafficking of methamphetamine from Mexico, with an individual named Chapo Isidro. During

1
On February 23, 2016, the Court dismissed the portions of the Indictment related to marijuana and heroin
because the GOM did not grant the Defendants extradition as to those drugs.

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182 Filed 06/28/16 Page 3 of 14

the course of the conspiracy, some of the loads of narcotics were seized in Mexico, other foreign
countries, and in the United States.
5.

As one of the organizers and leaders of the Beltran Leyva DTO, a sophisticated and

extensive international drug trafficking organization comprised of hundreds of individuals, the.


Defendant supervised two groups of a hundred men each who were in charge of the Defendants
security. The Defendants DTO trafficked massive quantities of cocaine from Colombia to
Mexico and eventually the United States through various locations, and the Defendant, along with
his brothers, supervised hundreds of people to ensure that this process ran smoothly.

The

Defendants role within the organization was to manage the operations of getting these drugs from
Mexico to the United States. In this capacity, the Defendant was responsible for supervising
dozens and dozens of individuals involved in the distribution of narcotics. Indeed, for decades,
the Defendant and his DTO successfully trafficked tonnage quantities of cocaine from Colombia
to Mexico that were then transported into the U.S. for further distribution.
6.

Aside from his overall responsibilities in the DTO, the Defendant also served as the

DTOs plaza boss in the city of Culiacan, located in the state of Sinaloa, Mexico. As the plaza
boss, he controlled and managed all aspects of the DTOs drug trade including: (1) oversight of all
of the DTOs drugs that were brought in and out of the city; (2) oversight of payments to corrupt
public officials who supported the DTOs illicit activities; and (3) management of the DTOs
cooperative relationships with the leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel, with whom he shared control of
Culiacan. Culiacan served as the central repository for a majority of the DTOs cocaine that was
destined for the United States. Culiacan grew in importance once the DTO began fighting with
Los Zetas, a rival cartel, around 2004, which cut-off the DTOs access to the United States along

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182 Filed 06/28/16 Page 4 of 14

Mexicos border with Texas. The city of Culiacan therefore served as a market place for the sale
of large shipments of cocaine to the DTOs customers, who used the transportation routes
controlled by the DTO and by the Sinaloa Cartel to import the cocaine into the United States.
Culiacan also served as the transshipment point for the large shipment of cocaine that the DTO
imported into the United States. As the plaza boss for the city of Culiacan, it was the Defendants
responsibility to oversee individuals involved in the sale of cocaine to the DTOs customers and
to oversee individuals involved in the transportation of the remaining portions of cocaine to the
United States. Once these shipments to the United States were organized, the Defendant gave
orders and instructions to others as to where loads of cocaine should be received, inventoried and
stored, so as to avoid law enforcement detection.
7.

Further, the Defendants DTO imported massive quantities of ephedrine from Asia

into Mexico, where the Defendant was in charge of overseeing its production into
methamphetamine, and its transportation across the border into the United States.

The

Defendants DTO also bribed law enforcement and military officials to facilitate their drug
trafficking activities and protect its members from arrest; as the plaza boss, the Defendant
approved these bribes.
8.

Even when the Defendant was arrested and detained in Mexico, he continued to

exercise control over the DTO by taking a large percentage of the profits either in the form of U.S.
currency or cocaine that were received by the Beltran Leyva DTO, indicating his managerial role
throughout the course of the conspiracy.
9.

Lastly, the Defendants power and control was extensive, which reflected the large

scale and scope of the Beltran Leyva DTO. The Defendant had the power to enter into mutual

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182 Filed 06/28/16 Page 5 of 14

agreements with other high-level drug traffickers, including members of the Sinaloa Cartel, to aid
each other in the organization and receipt of large quantities of cocaine from Colombia, as well as
the importation of that cocaine into the United States.
10.

The Indictment contains a forfeiture allegation notifying the Defendant that upon

conviction, he shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code,
Sections 853 and 970, any and all respective right, title, or interest which such defendants may
have in (1) any and all money and/or property constituting, or derived from any proceeds which
such defendants obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of the violations alleged in Count
One of this Indictment and (2) any and all property used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to
facilitate the commission of the violation alleged in Count One of this Indictment.
11.

The Government alleges prior to and subsequent to the Defendants plea of guilty

that, given the absence of identifiable assets, the it would seek a money judgment against the
Defendant in an amount to be determined, which amount, as set forth hereafter, is hereby alleged
to be $10,000,000,000 (ten billion dollars).
II.

ENTRY OF A PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE


12.

judgment.

This Court must enter a preliminary order of forfeiture regarding the money
See FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2(b)(2)(A).

13.

Rule 32.2 mandates that the court must enter the preliminary order sufficiently in

advance of sentencing to allow the parties to suggest revisions or modifications before the order
becomes final as to the defendant . . . FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2(b)(2)(B) (emphasis added).
Courts have interpreted this provision to require entry of a preliminary order of forfeiture prior
to sentencing.

See United States v. Schwartz, 503 Fed. Appx. 443, 445 (6th Cir. 2012)

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182 Filed 06/28/16 Page 6 of 14

(holding that a court must rule on governments motion for preliminary order of forfeiture prior
to sentencing) (emphasis added).
14.

As the Court, prior to the forfeiture hearing, cannot calculate with certainty the

total amount of the money judgment, Rule 32.2 provides that the Court may enter a preliminary
order that describes the money judgment in general terms, and states that the order will be
amended when Athe money judgment has been calculated.
15.

FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2(b)(2)(C).

In order to comply with Rule 32.2, the Government requests a preliminary order

of forfeiture in which this Court orders a money judgment in favor of the United States of
America for a sum of money equal to the value of the property constituting, or derived from,
any proceeds the Defendant obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the offense to which he
was found guilty, for which the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with co-defendants in
the underlying matter.
16.

At sentencing the Government will request a money judgment against the

Defendant for $10,000,000,000 (ten billion dollars), and offer additional evidence in support of
that amount.
17.

Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Evidence also provides the procedures

by which the Government must notice and litigate third party interests in specific forfeited
properties and money judgments.
18.

However, the Court must enter the preliminary order of forfeiture without regard

to any third partys interest in the specific forfeited properties. See FED. R. CRIM. P.
32.2(b)(2)(A); see also United States v. Andrews, 530 F.3d 1232, 1236 (10th Cir. 2008) (finding
that when issuing a preliminary order of forfeiture, the court does notand, indeed, may not
6

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182 Filed 06/28/16 Page 7 of 14

determine the rights of any third parties who assert an interest in the property); United States v.
Emor, 850 F.Supp.2d 176, 217-18 (D.D.C. 2012) (same).

Third parties can contest the

forfeiture of specific properties, including substitute assets, in an ancillary proceeding.

See

FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2(b)(2)(A).


19.

Third parties cannot contest the entry of a money judgment, because [a] money

judgment is an in personam judgment against the defendant and not an order directed at specific
assets in which any third party could have any interest. United States v. Zorrilla-Echevarria,
671 F.3d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2 advisory committee's notes on the
2000 amendments).
20.

In fact, Rule 32.2(c) provides that no ancillary proceeding is required to the

extent that the forfeiture consists of a money judgment. As such, third parties do not receive
notice of a money judgment.
21.

Where, as here, the Government only seeks forfeiture of a money judgment, the

preliminary forfeiture order becomes final as to the defendant at sentencing or at any time
before sentencing with the Defendants consent.

III.

FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2(b)(4)(A).

DETERMINATION OF A MONEY JUDGMENT


22.

Rule 32.2(b)(1)(A) provides that the Court shall determine the amount of money

that the defendant will be ordered to pay. The Defendant is not entitled to a jury determination
on the amount of a money judgment. See United States v. Grose, No. 10-6277, 461 Fed.Appx.
786, 806, 806-07 (10th Cir. Feb. 23, 2012) (rejecting argument that jury can determine money
judgment amount under Rule 32.2(b)(5)(A)); United States v. Gregoire, 638 F.3d 962, 972 (8th
Cir. 2011) (holding that adjudication by a jury is unavailable as to money judgments, because
7

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182 Filed 06/28/16 Page 8 of 14

Rule 32.2(b)(5)(A) only applies to the forfeitability of specific property) (citation omitted);
United States v. Tedder, 403 F.3d 836, 841 (7th Cir. 2005) (Rule 32.2 does not entitle the
accused to a jurys decision on the amount of the forfeiture.).
23.

The Government must prove the amount of the money judgment by a

preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Roberts, 660 F.3d 149, 166 (2nd Cir.
2011) (using a preponderance of the evidence standard to calculate the money judgment); United
States v. Pierre, 484 F.3d 75, 86 (1st Cir. 2007) (holding that the government may use either
direct or circumstantial evidence to establish the amount of the money judgment by a
preponderance of the evidence); United States v. Lewis, 791 F. Supp. 2d 81, 94-95 (D.D.C. 2011)
(court calculated money judgment based on a finding by a preponderance of the evidence).
24.

The drug forfeiture statute directs courts to liberally construe its provisions to

effectuate its remedial purpose. See Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(o). Courts have
calculated expansive money judgments against this backdrop. See United States v. Casey, 444
F.3d 1071, 1073-77 (9th Cir. 2006) (The criminal forfeiture statute mandates imposition of a
money judgment on substitute property, and following Congresss command, we construe the
provisions of the forfeiture statute liberally to further its purposes.); see also United States v.
Olguin, 643 F.3d 384, 400 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding that Title 21, United States Code, Section
853 is to be interpreted broadly so as to reach every last dollar that flowed through the
criminals hands in connection with the illicit activity).
25.

The Governments calculations of the gross receipts generated by the conspiracy

need not be exact, because criminals, especially drug traffickers, rarely keep detailed receipts of
their ill-gotten gains. See Roberts, 660 F.3d at 166 (Consequently, the law does not demand

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182 Filed 06/28/16 Page 9 of 14

mathematical exactitude in calculating the proceeds subject to forfeiture . . . because the purpose
of forfeiture is punitive rather than restitutive, district courts are not required to conduct an
investigative audit to ensure that the Defendant is not deprived of a single farthing more than his
criminal acts produced.) (quoting United States v. Lizza Indus., Inc., 775 F.2d 492, 498 (2d
Cir.1985)); United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d 32, 48 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding that the court must
only make a reasonable estimate of the money judgment given the available information, because
the calculation of forfeiture amounts is not an exact science).
26.

In determining the amount of a money judgment, the Court may consider any

evidence it deems reliable, including hearsay. See United States v. Ali, 619 F.3d 713, 720 (7th
Cir. 2010) (holding that because forfeiture is part of sentencing, less stringent evidentiary
standards apply in the forfeiture phase of the trial; the evidence need only be reliable); United
States v. Capoccia, 503 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir. 2007) (finding that Rule 32.2(b)(1) allows the
court to consider evidence or information, making it clear that the court may consider hearsay;
this is consistent with forfeiture being part of the sentencing process where hearsay is
admissible); United States v. Stathakis, 2008 WL 413782, *14 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (holding
court can rely on law enforcement agents reliable hearsay to determine the amount of the money
judgment); United States v. Evanson, 2008 WL 3107332, *2 (D. Utah 2008) (Because criminal
forfeiture is viewed as part of the sentencing process, hearsay is admissible) (citations omitted);
United States v. Gaskin, 2002 WL 459005, *9 (W.D.N.Y. 2002) (finding that, in the forfeiture
phase of the trial, the parties may offer evidence not already in the record; because forfeiture is
part of sentencing, such evidence may include reliable hearsay), affd, 364 F.3d 438 (2d Cir.

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182 Filed 06/28/16 Page 10 of 14

2004); United States v. Creighton, 52 Fed. Appx. 31, 35-36 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding hearsay is
admissible at sentencing and therefore may be considered in the forfeiture phase).
27.

The Court may also rely on evidence from the guilt phase of the proceedings,

supplemented by additional evidence. See United States v. Capoccia, 503 F.3d 103, 109 (2d
Cir. 2007) (holding that the court may rely on evidence from the guilt phase of the trial, even if
the forfeiture is contested; and it is not necessary for the Government to reintroduce that
evidence in the forfeiture hearing); United States v. Nicolo, 597 F. Supp. 2d 342, 345 (W.D.N.Y.
2009) (holding the rules of evidence do not apply in the forfeiture phase of the trial; the court
may rely on evidence from the guilt phase supplemented by an agents affidavit); United States
v. Schlesinger, 396 F. Supp. 2d 267, 271 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (holding that under Rule 32.2(b)(1),
the court determines the amount of the money judgment, or whether there is a sufficient nexus
between the property and the offense of conviction, based upon evidence in the record of the
criminal trial or evidence presented at a hearing after the verdict).
28.

In narcotics cases, the Government typically proves the amount of gross receipts

the conspiracy generated by multiplying the approximate quantity of drugs sold by the
approximate price at which the drugs were sold. See Roberts, 660 F.3d at 165-66 (approving of
calculation of money judgment by multiplying approximate price of drugs sold by the
approximate amount sold); United States v. Pierre, 484 F.3d 75, 86 (1st Cir. 2007) (entering a
$500,000 money judgment based on circumstantial evidence that the defendant sold at least
$3,000 worth of drugs per week for more than 3 years); United States v. Bourne, 2012 WL
526721, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2012) (Here, the forfeiture judgment against Bourne can be
calculated by multiplying the approximate number of shipments of cocaine for which he was

10

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182 Filed 06/28/16 Page 11 of 14

responsible by the approximate weight of those shipments by the wholesale value of cocaine
during the relevant time period.).
29.

The Government has made a conservative estimate of the gross receipts generated

by the conspiracy during the time period alleged in the Indictment. Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) Special Agent Britton Boyd will testify that, based upon extensive debriefs of
cooperating members of the DTO, including high ranking members of the organization with
detailed, first-hand knowledge of the DTOs financial dealings, the DTOs trafficking of cocaine
during the period 2000-2012 resulted in their receiving gross receipts of over $10,000,000,000.
30.

The Government will respectfully request a money judgment of $10,000,000,000

(ten billion dollars), in the interest of using a reasonably conservative estimate of the gross
receipts generated by DTO throughout the course of the charged conspiracy.
31.

The Defendants liability is joint and several with his co-conspirators; as such, his

liability is not limited to his own sales. See United States v. DeFries, 909 F. Supp. 13, 19-20
(D.D.C. 1995) (holding that defendants are jointly and severally liable even where the
government is able to determine precisely how much each defendant benefitted from the
scheme), revd on other grounds, 129 F.3d 1293 (D.C. Cir. 1997); see also Roberts, 660 F.3d at
165 (stating that joint and several liability is mandatory for the amount of the money judgment in
a drug case); United States v. Pitt, 193 F.3d 751, 765 (3d Cir. 1999) (same); FED. R. CRIM. P.
32.2 advisory committees notes on the 2000 amendments (noting that the conviction of any of
the defendants is sufficient to support the forfeiture of the entire proceeds of the offense, even if
the defendants have divided the money among themselves, because forfeiture liability is joint

11

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182 Filed 06/28/16 Page 12 of 14

and several). Thus, the Defendant is liable for the full amount of illicit income received by all
of the members of the conspiracy.
IV.

FORFEITURE OF SUBSTITUTE ASSETS


32.

Pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(3), the entry of a preliminary order of forfeiture

authorizes the Government to conduct discovery to identify, locate, and dispose of property
subject to forfeiture. See, e.g., United States v. Hill, 1:12-cr-44, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136674,
at *5 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 22, 2012) (authorizing discovery under Rule 32.2(b)(3)); United States v.
Gatta, No. 10-668, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101238 , at *4 (D.N.J. July 19, 2012) (same). The
Government can conduct such discovery to identify and locate all property subject to forfeiture,
including substitute property. See United States v. Smith, No. 3:08-cr-31-JMH, 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 134624, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 20, 2010) (Rule 32.2(b)(3) provides that the Government
may conduct discovery for the purpose of identifying and locating assets forfeited to the United
States, property traceable to such assets, or assets of the defendant that may be substituted up to
the value of the forfeited assets.); United States v. Gordon, No. 09-CR-013-JHP, 2010 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 143836, at *6 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 15, 2010) (authorizing discovery under Rule
32.2(b)(3) for identifying, locating or disposing of the property subject to forfeiture, or
substitute assets for such property).
33.

Upon entry of a money judgment, the Government seeks discovery authority to

identify and locate property that can be forfeited to satisfy that money judgment. See United
States v. Misla-Aldarondo, 478 F.3d 52, 75 (1st Cir. 2007) ([A] money judgment can be used in
the future to seek forfeiture of substitute assets by court order under 853(p) and Rule 32.2.).

12

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182 Filed 06/28/16 Page 13 of 14

Discovery is necessary and appropriate here, because the Government has been unable to
identify all assets belonging to the Defendant.
V.

CONCLUSION
34.

For all these reasons, the Government respectfully requests this Court enter the

attached Preliminary Order of Forfeiture granting a money judgment in favor of the United
States of America for a sum of money equal to the value of the property constituting, or derived
from, any proceeds the Defendant obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the offense to
which he was found guilty, for which the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with
co-conspirators in the underlying matter, and that at the hearing to be held on this matter on July
20, 2016, the Court grant a money judgment against the Defendant in the amount of
$10,000,000,000 (ten billion dollars).
Respectfully submitted this 28th day of June, 2016.
ARTHUR WYATT, Chief
Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section
Criminal Division
United States Department of Justice
By:

13

/s/
Andrea Goldbarg
Amanda N. Liskamm
Adrian Rosales
Trial Attorneys
Marcia M. Henry
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section
145 N Street, Northeast
East Wing, Second Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182 Filed 06/28/16 Page 14 of 14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via the CM/ECF system, to counsel
of record for the defendant, this 28th day of June 2016.

Respectfully submitted,
ARTHUR WYATT, Chief
Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section

By:

___/s/_______________________________
Andrea Goldbarg
Amanda N. Liskamm
Adrian Rosales
Trial Attorneys
Marcia M. Henry
Assistant United States Attorney
Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section
U.S. Department of Justice
145 N Street NE
Second Floor, East Wing
Washington, DC 20530

14

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182-1 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ALFREDO BELTRAN LEYVA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CRIMINAL NO.: 12-CR-184 (RJL)

PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE


WHEREAS, the Indictment alleged the forfeiture of property, that is, judgment against
defendant Alfredo Beltran Leyva, also known as Mochomo, (hereinafter Defendant) in favor
of the United States of America (hereafter the Government) for a sum of money equal to the
value of the property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the Defendant obtained, directly
or indirectly, as a result of the offense of unlawful conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or
more of cocaine, and fifty grams or more of methamphetamine, for importation into the United
States, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 959, 960, and 963, for which
Defendant is jointly and severally liable, which property is subject to forfeiture, pursuant to Title
21, United States Code, Sections 853 and 970, as a result of the said violation;
WHEREAS, the Government alleged prior to and subsequent to the Defendants guilty
plea that the Government would seek a money judgment against Defendant in an amount to be
determined, which amount it now alleges to be $10,000,000,000 (ten billion dollars);

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182-1 Filed 06/28/16 Page 2 of 4

WHEREAS, Defendant entered a plea of guilty on February 23, 2016, of the offense of
conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, and fifty grams or more of
methamphetamine, for importation into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 959(a),
960(b)(1)(B)(ii), 960(b)(1)(H) and 963 in Count One of the Indictment;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2(b)(2), this Court determines, based upon the
evidence proffered by the Government, that a money judgment be entered for an amount to be
determined at sentencing which is equal to the value of the property constituting or derived from
proceeds Defendant obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the offense for which he was
found guilty, for which Defendant is jointly and severally liable with co-conspirators in the
underlying matter, insofar as this property is subject to forfeiture pursuant to Title 21, United
States Code, Sections 853 and 970, and that the Government has established the connection
between this property and the violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 959, 960, and
963;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1.

That the following property is declared forfeited to the United States, pursuant to

Title 21, United States Code, Sections 853 and 970: a sum of money equal to the total value of
any and all property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly,
as the result of the offense for which Defendant was found guilty, and for which Defendant is
jointly and severally liable with co-conspirators in the underlying matter.
2.

The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this Order, and to amend it as

necessary, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(e).

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182-1 Filed 06/28/16 Page 3 of 4

3.

The Court shall amend this Order, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(e)(1), at

sentencing to calculate the amount of the money judgment.


4.

That pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(4), this Order of Forfeiture shall be made part of the

sentence and included in the judgment.


5.

The Clerk of the Court shall forward four certified copies of this Order to Deputy

Chief Andrea Goldbarg, Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section, Criminal Division, United States
Department of Justice, 145 N Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20530.
FURTHERMORE, WHEREAS, upon the entry of this preliminary order of forfeiture,
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(3) authorizes the Attorney General, or a designee, to
conduct any discovery a court considers proper in identifying, locating, and disposing of
property subject to forfeiture;
WHEREAS, this Court, having reviewed and considered the Governments motion to
conduct discovery, finds that it is proper for the Government to conduct such discovery;

Case 1:12-cr-00184-RJL Document 182-1 Filed 06/28/16 Page 4 of 4

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:


6.

The United States, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(3), is

authorized to conduct discovery to identify, locate, and dispose of property subject to forfeiture,
including substitute property.

Dated this _______ day of ___________ 2016.

RICHARD J. LEON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Requested by:
ARTHUR WYATT, Chief
Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section
Criminal Division
United States Department of Justice
By:

/s/
Andrea Goldbarg
Amanda N. Liskamm
Adrian Rosales
Trial Attorneys
Marcia M. Henry
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section
145 N Street, Northeast
East Wing, Second Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530