USA v. Ernest Turner


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-30425 Affirmed ] Judge: EMG , Judge: LHS , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 02/29/2012 [11-30425]

Download PDF
Case: 11-30425 Document: 00511751889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-30425 Summary Calendar February 8, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ERNEST TURNER, also known as Baldie Turner, also known as B-Man Turner, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:07-CR-343-2 Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* After Ernest Turner was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, the district court entered a final forfeiture order against him in the amount of $10,000,000. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(e) and 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), the district court amended the final order of forfeiture to require the forfeiture of substitute property toward the satisfaction * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 11-30425 Document: 00511751889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2012 No. 11-30425 of the $10,000,000 forfeiture judgment. Turner appeals the portion of the order requiring the forfeiture of $11,233 and $10,071.75 in currency. “We review the district court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard of review, and the question of whether those facts constitute legally proper forfeiture de novo.” United States v. Marmolejo, 89 F.3d 1185, 1197 (5th Cir. 1996). Turner contends that the Government failed to prove that the currency derived exclusively from his criminal offense, and, therefore, the district court erred by not holding a hearing to determine whether the property was properly subject to forfeiture. But the Government was not required to prove that the currency derived from Turner’s criminal offense to seize it under § 853(p). See § 853(a), (p). The district court was therefore not required to hold a hearing on the basis urged by Turner. Any argument that the currency should have been exempt from forfeiture because it is needed to pay for legal representation also lacks merit. “[N]either due process, nor the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, requires that assets needed to pay an attorney be exempted from restraining orders or, ultimately, from forfeiture.” United States v. Melrose E. Subdiv., 357 F.3d 493, 500 (5th Cir. 2004). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?