Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Luis Sanchez, et al. v. United States
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 22-11923 · judgment September 11, 2023
Before the decision, modestly above the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and an Eleventh Circuit decision below.
Question presented
When a person is convicted of a drug crime, 21 U.S.C. § 853 calls for bifurcated proceedings to ascertain what property may be forfeited as a result of the crime. During the initial criminal proceeding—in which third parties may not participate—a court adjudicates whether the property that has been seized has a nexus to the crime. If so, the court must enter a preliminary order of forfeiture, at which point any innocent person who asserts an interest in the property has 30 days to initiate a civil action by petitioning for “a hearing to adjudicate the validity of his alleged interest in the property.” Id. § 853(n)(2). Under the plain text of this statute, it is clear that the government has “clear title to property that is the subject of the order of forfeiture,” id. § 853(n)(7), if no petition is filed within 30 days. But what happens if a petition that contains a readily correctible pleading deficiency is filed within 30 days and the petitioner promptly seeks leave to amend to correct that pleading deficiency? The Second and Seventh Circuits say leave to amend is allowed. But in the decision below, the Eleventh Circuit widened a circuit split by joining the Fifth Circuit in finding that § 853(n) precludes district courts from allowing amendment once the 30-day filing period has run. The question presented is: Whether a timely-filed 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) petition may be amended to cure a pleading deficiency after the
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Stephen Francis Raiola
Kibler Fowler & Cave LLP
For respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Solicitor General
Proceedings
- Oct 07 2024Petition DENIED.
- Jul 24 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
- Jul 22 2024Reply of petitioners Luis Sanchez, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Jul 10 2024Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
- May 28 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including July 10, 2024.
- May 23 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 12, 2024 to July 10, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- May 13 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 12, 2024.
- May 13 2024Brief amici curiae of The Rutherford Institute and Manhattan Institute for Policy Research filed.
- May 13 2024Brief amicus curiae of Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.
- May 10 2024Brief amici curiae of The Cato Institute, et al. filed.
- May 09 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 13, 2024 to June 12, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- Apr 19 2024Brief amicus curiae of The Buckeye Institute filed.
- Apr 11 2024Response Requested. (Due May 13, 2024)
- Apr 10 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2024.
- Apr 05 2024Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
- Mar 20 2024Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 22, 2024)
- Feb 05 2024Application (23A722) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until March 20, 2024.
- Feb 01 2024Application (23A722) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 19, 2024 to April 19, 2024, submitted to Justice Thomas.