From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Mendoza

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Apr 7, 2022
19cr4770-WQH (S.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2022)

Opinion

19cr4770-WQH

04-07-2022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RORY MENDOZA (5), Defendant.


ORDER OF CRIMINAL FORFEITURE

Hon. William Q. Hayes United States District Judge

WHEREAS, in the Superseding Information the United States sought forfeiture of all right, title and interest in specific properties of Defendant RORY MENDOZA (5) (“Defendant”), pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §853, as charged in the Second Superseding Information; and

WHEREAS, on or about February 3, 2022, Defendant pled guilty before this Court to Count 2 of the Second Superseding Information, which plea included consent to the forfeiture allegations of the Second Superseding Information, and an agreement to forfeit to the United States in the form of a forfeiture money judgment the amount of $40, 000.00 as proceeds Defendant received from the offense, which forfeiture money judgment shall be included and incorporated as part of the judgment in this case; and

WHEREAS, by virtue of the admissions of the Defendant set out in the plea agreement and guilty plea, the Court determined that $40, 000.00 represents the moneys derived from and traceable to the proceeds that the Defendant obtained directly as a result of the offense to which Defendant pled guilty, 21 U.S.C. §§841 and 846, as charged in the Second Superseding Information; and

WHEREAS, by virtue of said guilty plea and the Court's findings, the United States is now entitled to an Order of Forfeiture in the form of a forfeiture money judgment in its favor against the Defendant for the proceeds received by the Defendant in the amount of $40, 000.00, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §853 and Rule 32.2(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and

WHEREAS, by virtue of the facts set forth in the plea agreement and forfeiture addendum, the United States has established the requisite nexus between the $40, 000.00 forfeiture money judgment and the offense; and

WHEREAS, the Defendant has agreed that the provisions for the substitution of assets as provided in 21 U.S.C. §853(p) exist and has agreed the United States may take actions to collect the forfeiture; and

WHEREAS, the United States, having submitted the Order herein to the Defendant through his attorney of record, to review, and no objections having been received;

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

1. Defendant RORY MENDOZA (5) shall forfeit to the United States the sum of $40, 000.00 in the form of a money judgment in favor of the United States for the proceeds Defendant received from his offense of conviction, which forfeiture money judgment is in favor of the United States against Defendant RORY MENDOZA, with interest to accrue thereon in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §3612(f) and 28 U.S.C. §1961; and

2. This Court shall retain jurisdiction in the case for the purpose of enforcing the forfeiture money judgment and collecting and enforcing the forfeiture; and

3. Pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(4), this Order of Forfeiture shall be made final as to the Defendant at the time of sentencing and is part of the sentence and included in the judgment; and

4. Pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(3) the United States may, at any time, conduct discovery to identify, locate, or dispose of directly forfeitable assets and substitute assets against which the forfeiture money judgement may be enforced; and

5. The United States may, at any time, move pursuant to Rule 32.2(e) to amend this Order of Forfeiture to substitute property having a value not to exceed $40, 000.00 to satisfy the forfeiture money judgment in whole or in part; and

6. The United States may take any and all actions available to it to collect and enforce the forfeiture money judgment.


Summaries of

United States v. Mendoza

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Apr 7, 2022
19cr4770-WQH (S.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2022)
Case details for

United States v. Mendoza

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RORY MENDOZA (5), Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Apr 7, 2022

Citations

19cr4770-WQH (S.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2022)