[DOWNLOAD] "United States v. Apampa" by Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: United States v. Apampa
- Author : Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 02, 1999
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 51 KB
Description
Submitted May 12, 1999 Charged with conspiring to distribute heroin, Kadiri Apampa pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 100 months' imprisonment, plus forfeiture of $675,000. Fifty-six days after the sentence was docketed, Apampa filed a notice of appeal addressed solely to its forfeiture component. ""In a criminal case, a defendant's notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 10 days after"" entry of the ""judgment or order being appealed"". Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). But in a civil case to which the United States is a party, the losing side has 60 days to take an appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Apampa contends that his notice of appeal is timely because a financial forfeiture should be treated as a civil judgment. Many forfeitures are civil, but this was not. The United States sought the forfeiture as a penalty for crime; it was imposed under 21 U.S.C. sec.853 (captioned ""Criminal Forfeitures"") in the criminal case. See Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 38-39 (1995); cf. Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993). This forfeiture is no more a ""civil case"" than is a criminal fine. Both fine and forfeiture are monetary exactions, but whether a financial penalty is civil or criminal depends on the nature of the proceeding, and not simply on money versus imprisonment. Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 98 (1997); S.A. Healy Co. v. OSHRC, 138 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 1998). Nor did the fact that the district Judge specified the punishment in two documents (one providing imprisonment and the other forfeiture) affect the time to appeal; this remains a ""defendant's"" appeal in ""a criminal case"".