Sixth Circuit: United States v. Daniel Sexton

Sentencing bump for commission of crime while under sentence was appropriate by the terms of the guidelines, since deft was on summary probation in contemplation of dismissal following a nolo contendere plea.

Leadership sentencing increase appropriate where deft own corporations engaged in the activity and employs admins; existence of other leaders is immaterial.

Within guidelines sentence substantively reasonable.

Forfeiture appropriate to any assets obtained through the crime; there is no need for the deft to have actually received the assets.  Tension with S.Ct.U.S. holding on a parallel statute, circuit split flagged.

No plain error in court's acceptance of charge-off methodology and costs in the PSR.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0132p-06.pdf

Second Circuit: U.S. v. Daugerdas

Although, since the interest attached at the time of the offense, the government has a superior claim to the forfeited funds, if the recipient of a gratuitous transfer can allege facts sufficient to infer that the transfer preceded the criminal acts, Due Process and the statute both allow the third party, despite the issues resolved in the criminal action, to claim a superior interest, since commingling of funds would bar the relation-back of the government's interest.

"Pled."

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/3/doc/17-898_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/3/hilite/