Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Louis McIntosh, aka Lou D v. United States
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 14-1908 · judgment January 25, 2023
Questions presented
Granted limited to question 1 presented by the petition. 1.Whether a district court may enter a criminal forfeiture order outside the time limitations set forth in Rule 32.2, Fed.R.Crim.P.? The appellate courts are divided on this issue. The Court of Appeals below rejected petitioner's argument that the district court's forfeiture order was invalid where the government failed to submit a preliminary order of forfeiture until more than two- and-half years after sentencing, and the government also failed to comply with the district court's direction that it provide a formal order of forfeiture within one week of sentencing, Compare United States v. Maddux, 37 F.4th 1170 (6th Cir. 2022) (rejecting the decision below and concluding that Rule 32.2 was a mandatory claim processing rule preventing forfeiture in that case); and United States v. Shakur, 691 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 201l)(Rule 32.2's mandates are jurisdictional, and a court lacks the "power to enter" forfeiture once Rule 32.2's deadlines have passed); and United States v. Martin, 662 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2011) (concluding that Rule 32.2's deadlines are simply "time-related directive[s]"). 2.Is the theft of cash from an individual sufficient to satisfy the "interstate commerce" element of 18 U.S.C. §1951 a necessary predicate for federal jurisdiction of what is otherwise local criminal conduct that should be prosecuted by the individual states? The Solicitor General candidly admitted in a prior case before this Court that: when there's a robbery of an individual, the links [to Commerce] are much more attenuated and there's a longer chain of causation to get to commerce. And so in those contexts, even within the depletion of assets theory that my brother espouses before the Court, the courts have said, as a normal matter, robberies of individuals just don't fall within the Commerce Clause. Taylor v. United States, 14- 6166 (Transcript of Oral Argument, Feb, 23, 2016) at 23-24. Despite this concession, the Second Circuit upheld petitioner's conviction under the depletion of assets theory, a theory that when applied to an individual effectively eviscerates the "interstate commerce" element and raises serious Federalism concerns.
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Amicus briefs
2 merits
(2 supporting pet./neither)
Related
Argument & decision
Argued February 27, 2024 — Steven Y. Yurowitz · Matthew Guarnieri. Audio and transcript
Decided April 17, 2024. Opinion by Sotomayor.
Proceedings
- Aug 22 2024Record returned to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- May 20 2024Judgment Issued.
- Apr 17 2024Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
- Feb 27 2024Argued. For petitioner: Steven Y. Yurowitz, New York, N. Y. For respondent: Matthew Guarnieri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
- Feb 09 2024Reply of petitioner Louis McIntosh filed. (Distributed)
- Jan 24 2024Record received from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (one envelope).
- Jan 11 2024CIRCULATED.
- Jan 11 2024Record received from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The record is electronic and is available with the Clerk.
- Jan 10 2024Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- Jan 10 2024Brief of respondent United States filed.
- Jan 05 2024SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, February 27, 2024.
- Dec 04 2023Brief amicus curiae of New York Council of Defense Lawyers filed.
- Dec 04 2023Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.
- Nov 27 2023Brief of petitioner Louis McIntosh filed.
- Nov 27 2023Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
- Oct 17 2023Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including November 27, 2023. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 10, 2024.
- Oct 11 2023Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
- Sep 29 2023Motion of petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
- Aug 17 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
- Jul 31 2023Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
- Jun 09 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including July 31, 2023.
- Jun 07 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 29, 2023 to July 31, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- May 23 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 29, 2023.
- May 22 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 30, 2023 to June 29, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Apr 24 2023Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 30, 2023)