Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
US v. Brummer, No. 09-13613, involved defendant's appeal from the district court's order that he forfeit two firearms and six rounds of ammunition pursuant to his conviction of knowingly and willfully failing to declare firearms to a common carrier.
As the per curiam court of appeals opinion states: "Fed. R. Crim P. 32.2(b)(1) requires that, "[a]s soon as practical after a . . . plea of guilty or nolo contendere is accepted, on any count in an indictment or information regarding which criminal forfeiture is sought, the court must determine what property is subject to forfeiture under the applicable statute." Rule 32.2(b)(2) explains the next step: "If the court determines that the property is subject to forfeiture, it must promptly enter a preliminary order of forfeiture . . . directing forfeiture of the specific property . . . ." The district court properly determined that the two guns and six rounds of ammunition involved in Brummer's willful violation of § 922(e) were subject to forfeiture under § 924(d)(1). Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2 therefore required the district court to direct forfeiture of the guns and ammunition. The court lacked discretion to do otherwise."
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, on the ground that the indictment charging defendant with violating 18 U.S.C. section 922(e) included a notice of forfeiture, and thus the district court therefore was required to order forfeiture of the property.