NOTICE ON FORFEITURE by USA as to Eric Dean Sheppard — USA v. SHEPPARD (Dkt. 133)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 1:22-cr-20290-BB · Doc. 133 · 2023-11-22 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

A Notice on Forfeiture filed by the United States and entered on the docket November 22, 2023 as Document 133 in United States v. Eric Dean Sheppard, Case No. 22-20290-CR-BLOOM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It states that the superseding indictment identified real property in Bal Harbour, Florida as subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), and that the trial was scheduled to begin November 27, 2023. The notice states that the government is no longer pursuing that property as a directly forfeitable asset and will instead seek it as a substitute asset under 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) to satisfy any forfeiture money judgment. It argues from Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A), Padron, 527 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2008) and Curbelo, 726 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2013) that the court, not the jury, sets a money judgment. It is three pages.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO. 22-20290-CR-BLOOM 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
vs.  
 
ERIC DEAN SHEPPARD, 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
 
  / 
 
 
NOTICE ON FORFEITURE 
  
 
The United States of America (the “United States” or “Government”), by and through the 
undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby files this notice on forfeiture.   
The following property listed in the Superseding Indictment was previously identified as 
subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C): real property located at 180 Bal Cross 
Drive, Bal Harbour, Florida 33154-1390 (the “Property”).  See Superseding Indictment 9–10, 
ECF No. 60.1  On September 20, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant’s motion to retain the 
jury following the guilt phase of the trial; having the jury determine the forfeitability of specific 
assets.  See Paperless Order, ECF No. 104; Def.’s Mot. to Bifurcate Forfeiture, ECF No. 81.  The 
trial is schedule to begin on November 27, 2023.  See Order, ECF No. 112; Minute Entry, ECF 
No. 129.  
The United States is no longer pursuing judicial forfeiture of the Property as a directly 
forfeitable asset.  Instead, and in the event that the Defendant is found guilty, the United States 
will seek to forfeit the Property as a substitute asset, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), to satisfy any 
 
1 Prior to a federal grand jury’s return of the Superseding Indictment, the Property was identified 
as subject to forfeiture in a Bill of Particulars filed by the United States on July 15, 2022. See Bill 
of Particulars, ECF No. 16.  
Case 1:22-cr-20290-BB   Document 133   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2023   Page 1 of 3

2 
potential forfeiture money judgment ordered by the Court. See generally Superseding Indictment 
9–10.  
Because the United States is no longer seeking to forfeit specific assets, the Court—not the 
jury—determines what property is subject to forfeiture upon the Defendant’s conviction, which 
may take the form of a personal money judgment.  See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A) (“If the 
Government seeks a personal money judgment, the court must determine the amount of money 
that the defendant will be ordered to pay.”); see also United States v. Padron, 527 F.3d 1156, 1162 
(11th Cir. 2008) (holding that Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure “explicitly contemplate the 
entry of money judgments in criminal forfeiture cases”); United States v. Curbelo, 726 F.3d 1260, 
1278 (11th Cir. 2013) (“We remain persuaded that the court, not a jury, should determine the 
amount of a money judgment forfeiture.”).   
Once the Court enters a forfeiture money judgment, the Government may establish its right 
to forfeit substitute property—a defendant’s other property, up to the value of the judgment—
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p).  Substitute asset forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) is mandatory, 
and there is no right to have a jury determine whether substitute assets may be forfeited.  See 
United States v. Alamoudi, 452 F.3d 310, 314 (4th Cir. 2006) (“an order authorizing forfeiture of 
substitute assets pursuant to § 853(p) does not require a jury determination because it does not at 
all increase the amount of forfeiture. Rather, § 853(p) simply requires the court to allow the 
Government to seize substitute property when the defendant has placed the assets initially 
sought—and to which the Government is legally entitled—beyond the court’s reach”) (emphasis 
in original) (citations omitted). 
 
[Intentional Blank Space] 
 
Case 1:22-cr-20290-BB   Document 133   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2023   Page 2 of 3

3 
As such, there are no forfeiture matters for the jury to decide and no need to retain the jury 
after the guilt phase of the trial.   
 
Respectfully submitted, 
MARKENZY LAPOINTE  
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
By: 
s/ Mitchell E. Hyman              
 
Mitchell Evan Hyman 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Florida Bar No. 125405 
U.S. Attorney’s Office  
99 N.E. 4th Street, 7th Floor 
Miami, Florida 33132-2111 
Telephone: (305) 961-9283 
E-mail: Mitchell.Hyman@usdoj.gov 
Case 1:22-cr-20290-BB   Document 133   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2023   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.615773.133.0.pdf

Size

88,357 bytes

SHA-256

f3adc8ccbf960c0c75ac0a02bbfd37e376a984bfdedd72b65749b7178297d161

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.615773.133.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)