McIntosh v. United States
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in McIntosh v. United States and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of McIntosh v. United States.
In McIntosh v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed whether a district court's failure to enter a preliminary order of forfeiture before sentencing, as required by Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B), barred the court from ordering forfeiture. The Court found that the rule is a time-related directive and does not prevent forfeiture if the deadline is missed, as long as it is subject to harmless-error principles on appellate review.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in McIntosh v. United States.
The Court held that a district court's failure to comply with Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B)'s timing requirement does not bar a judge from ordering forfeiture at sentencing, subject to harmless-error review.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in McIntosh v. United States. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to McIntosh v. United States
The case involves whether the failure to comply with procedural rules affected the defendant's rights, specifically related to the timing of a forfeiture order.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)McIntosh's invocation of the Rule's purpose—to ensure due process and promote judicial economy—falls flat.
-
Why Excessive Fines is relevant to McIntosh v. United States
The case involves the forfeiture of property, which can implicate the Excessive Fines Clause if the forfeiture is deemed disproportionate.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The indictment set forth the demand that McIntosh 'shall forfeit . . . all property . . . derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of the [Hobbs Act] offenses.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in McIntosh v. United States that support the summary and concepts above.
A district court's failure to comply with Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B)'s requirement to enter a preliminary order before sentencing does not bar a judge from ordering forfeiture at sentencing subject to harmless-error principles.
The Court agrees with the Second Circuit and the Government that Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B) establishes a time-related directive.
Noncompliance with Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B) is a procedural error subject to harmlessness review.
