U.S. v. Smith

In prosecution on drug conspiracy and various fraud charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in entering order requiring defendant to forfeit eight parcels of real estate that govt. claimed were purchased through funds generated by defendant’s criminal activities. While defendant argued that forfeiture was improper under Rule 11 and 410 because forfeiture was based on statements made by defendant during two proffer discussions, defendant waived such argument since he signed proffer letter. Moreover, govt. did not have burden to establish that said waiver was knowing or voluntary, and Rules 11 and 410 do not apply to forfeiture proceedings. Alternatively, record supported forfeiture where instant parcels qualified as “substitute assets” that could be used to satisfy in personam judgment entered by Dist. Ct. Also, Dist. Ct. properly used “net worth” analysis to justify forfeiture order, where record showed that there was no likely source of legitimate income to purchase said parcels.