Motion for Order of Forfeiture and Preliminary Order — USA v. Horne (Dkt. 74, M.D. Fla.)

Summary

The United States' Motion for Order of Forfeiture and Preliminary Order of Forfeiture for Specific Asset in United States of America v. Verlynn Jamelah Horne, Case No. 6:25-cr-161-JSS-NWH, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, filed April 28, 2026 as Document 74. It asks the Court to enter an order of forfeiture of $2,517,930, the proceeds the defendant admitted obtaining from the wire fraud scheme charged in Count Six, and a preliminary order of forfeiture for the Black Lake Blvd. Property in Winter Garden, Florida, purchased with scheme proceeds. A footnote states the property was appraised at approximately $811,000 in April 2025 and purchased in 2020 for approximately $495,000. The motion also seeks leave to pursue substitute assets under 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) and is signed by Assistant United States Attorney Nicole M. Andrejko.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page 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

Cite this document

“Motion for Order of Forfeiture and Preliminary Order — USA v. Horne (Dkt. 74, M.D. Fla.).” Original at ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/motion-for-order-of-forfeiture-and-preliminary-order-usa-v-horne-dkt-7-650e5b2cae/, SHA-256 2a8fabe4291817360ef0496f345b15a05f732e37b7813e95e53c193aa0ae64bf.

Full text

Case 6:25-cr-00161-JSS-NWH Document 74 Filed 04/28/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID 169

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 6:25-cr-161-JSS-NWH

VERLYNN JAMELAH HORNE

UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR ORDER OF FORFEITURE AND
PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE FOR SPECIFIC ASSET

The United States moves this Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28

U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2), to enter (1) an order of forfeiture

against the defendant in the amount of $2,517,930, which represents the amount of

proceeds the defendant obtained from the wire fraud scheme charged in Count Six of

the Indictment; as well as, (2) a preliminary order of forfeiture for the real property

located at:

1922 Black Lake Blvd., Winter Garden, Florida, 34787,

Lot 7, Block 6, Stoneybrook West Unit 2, according to the map or plat
thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 46, Page(s) 55 through 57, inclusive,
of the Public Records of Orange County, Florida.

Parcel Identification Number: 34-22-27-8287-06070.

Titled Owner: Terrance L. Horne and Verlynn J. Horne, 1

1
On July 31, 2025, Terrance L. Horne, the defendant’s then husband, signed a
Consent to Forfeiture forfeiting all right, title, and interest he may have in the real
property. See Exhibit A.
Case 6:25-cr-00161-JSS-NWH Document 74 Filed 04/28/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID 170

which was purchased with proceeds obtained from the wire fraud scheme charged in

Count Six. In support, the United States submits the following.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

I. Statement of Facts

A. Allegations Against the Defendant

1. In pertinent part, the defendant was charged in an Indictment with wire

fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Count Six). Doc. 1.

2. The Indictment contained forfeiture allegations putting the defendant

on notice that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), the

United States was seeking forfeiture of any property, real or personal, involved in the

offense, or any property traceable to such property, including an order of forfeiture

representing the amount of proceeds the defendant personally obtained, and the real

property identified above. Id. at 14-16.

B. Finding of Guilt and Admissions Related to Forfeiture

3. The defendant pled guilty to Counts Six and Twelve of the Indictment.

Docs. 65, 67. The Court accepted the defendant’s plea and adjudicated her guilty.

Doc. 73.

4. The defendant admitted in her Plea Agreement (Doc. 65 at 19-22), that

she committed wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Specifically, the

defendant admitted she personally obtained $2,517,930 in proceeds from the wire

fraud scheme charged in Count Six of the Indictment. The defendant also admitted

2
Case 6:25-cr-00161-JSS-NWH Document 74 Filed 04/28/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID 171

that she used the fraud proceeds for her own personal use, including to purchase the

Black Lake Blvd. Property. Id.

5. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), the

defendant admitted and agreed that the United States was entitled to an order of

forfeiture in the amount of $2,517,930, representing the amount of proceeds she

personally obtained as a result of the wire fraud scheme, and further admitted that

the Black Lake Blvd Property was subject to forfeiture. Doc. 65 at 5. Moreover, the

defendant agreed that the order of forfeiture would be final upon entry. Id. at 7.

II. Applicable Law

A. Applicable Forfeiture Statute

The Court’s authority to order civil forfeiture of property for violations of 18

U.S.C. § 1343 is found in 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). Section 981(a)(1)(C) provides for

the civil forfeiture of any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived

from proceeds from any offense constituting “specified unlawful activity” as defined

in 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7). A “specified unlawful activity,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. §

1956(c)(7), includes offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). Specifically, 18 U.S.C. §

1961(1) includes violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), the

government is authorized to forfeit this property criminally, and the procedures for

the forfeiture and disposition of the property are governed by 21 U.S.C. § 853.

3
Case 6:25-cr-00161-JSS-NWH Document 74 Filed 04/28/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID 172

B. Order of Forfeiture

For cases in which a defendant no longer has the actual dollars or property

traceable to proceeds in his possession, or the government cannot locate all of those

assets, the obligation to forfeit simply takes the form of an order of forfeiture in favor

of the United States. See United States v. Padron, 527 F.3d 1156, 1161-62 (11th Cir.

2008). Rule 32.2(b)(1) provides that, where the government seeks an order of

forfeiture, the Court must determine the amount of money that the defendant will be

ordered to pay.

Because the defendant has dissipated most of the criminal proceeds that she

obtained from the wire fraud scheme, Doc. 65 at p.6, the United States seeks an

order of forfeiture against the defendant in the amount of $2,517,930. As the

defendant has agreed, she personally obtained $2,517,930 in proceeds as a result of

the wire fraud scheme. If the Court finds that the defendant obtained at least

$2,517,930 as a result of her participation in the scheme and that the defendant has

dissipated those proceeds, then it is appropriate for the Court to enter an order of

forfeiture against the defendant in that amount pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(2).

C. Direct Asset

Rule 32.2(b)(1) provides that, when the government seeks to forfeit specific

property, the Court must determine whether the government has established the

requisite nexus between the property and the defendant=s crime. Fed. R. Crim. P.

4
Case 6:25-cr-00161-JSS-NWH Document 74 Filed 04/28/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID 173

32.2(b)(1). The Court must do so as soon as practical after a verdict or finding of

guilty, or after a plea of guilty is accepted. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A).

The Court’s determination may be based on evidence already in the record, or

any additional evidence submitted by the parties and accepted by the Court as

relevant and reliable. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B). As the defendant has agreed,

the real property identified above was purchased with proceeds of the wire fraud

scheme that she obtained as a result of her participation in the offense charged in

Count One. Therefore, the real property is subject to forfeiture, pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).

The net proceeds 2 from the forfeiture of the real property will be credited

toward the balance of the defendant’s $2,517,930 order of forfeiture.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the United States requests that, pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2), the

Court enter (1) an order of forfeiture against the defendant in the amount of

$2,517,930, and (2) a preliminary order of forfeiture for the Black Lake Blvd.

Property, which was purchased with proceeds of the wire fraud scheme charged in

Count Six. The United States further requests that the order of forfeiture become

final to the defendant at the time it is entered.

2
According to an appraisal obtained by the United States in April 2025, the Black
Lake Blvd. Property is valued at approximately $811,000. (The defendant purchased
the property in 2020 for approximately $495,000).
5
Case 6:25-cr-00161-JSS-NWH Document 74 Filed 04/28/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID 174

The United States further requests that, because most of the $2,517,930 in

proceeds was dissipated by the defendant, the United States may seek, as a substitute

asset, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) and

Rule 32.2(e)(1)(B), forfeiture of any of the defendant’s property up to the value of

$2,517,930.

Upon issuance of the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, the United States will

provide written notice to all third parties known to have an alleged legal interest in

the property and will publish notice on the Internet at www.forfeiture.gov of its

intent to forfeit the property. Determining whether a third party has any interest in

the property must be deferred until a third-party files a claim. See Rule 32.2(c).

As required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4)(B), the United

States requests that the Court include the forfeiture when orally pronouncing the

sentence and in the judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(B) and United States v.

Kennedy, 201 F.3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir. 2000).

The United States further requests that the Court retain jurisdiction to address

any third-party claim that may be asserted in these proceedings, to enter any further

order necessary for the forfeiture and disposition of such property, and to order any

6
Case 6:25-cr-00161-JSS-NWH Document 74 Filed 04/28/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID 175

other substitute assets forfeited to the United States up to the amount of the order of

forfeiture.

Respectfully Submitted,

GREGORY W. KEHOE
United States Attorney

By: s/Nicole M. Andrejko__________
NICOLE M. ANDREJKO
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0820601
400 W. Washington Street, Suite 3100
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: (407) 648-7560
Facsimile: (407) 648-7643
Email: Nicole.Andrejko@usdoj.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 28, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of

electronic filing to counsel of record.

s/ Nicole M. Andrejko_________
NICOLE M. ANDREJKO
Assistant United States Attorney

File and source

File: 74-motion-for-order-of-forfeiture-and-preliminary-order-by-usa.pdf
Size: 154,289 bytes
SHA-256: 2a8fabe4291817360ef0496f345b15a05f732e37b7813e95e53c193aa0ae64bf
Our copy: 74-motion-for-order-of-forfeiture-and-preliminary-order-by-usa.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)