Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In 2015, a jury convicted Huey P. Williams, Jr., of one count of aiding and abetting healthcare fraud. Before sentencing, the district court imposed a personal money judgment of $1,969,498.36 under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(7). The Fifth Circuit later affirmed his conviction and sentence.
In 2025, the district court ordered the forfeiture of two properties owned by Williams as substitute assets to satisfy the outstanding money judgment. Williams appealed, arguing that the money judgment never became effective because it was neither pronounced at sentencing nor included in the written judgment. He also asserted that the substitution proceedings improperly disregarded third-party interests and failed to provide him constitutionally adequate notice.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. It held that the district court followed Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2 when imposing the money judgment. The judgment therefore operated as a preliminary forfeiture order that became final as to Williams at sentencing, and the district court retained authority under Rule 32.2(e) to order forfeiture of substitute assets years later. The court also concluded that Williams had received a sufficient opportunity to object to the money judgment.
The panel rejected Williams’s procedural challenges to the substitute-asset order. It held that the district court could enter the order without first resolving third-party interests, which are addressed through separate procedures. Notice sent by certified and first-class mail to Williams’s known residence was reasonably calculated to reach him and afforded the required notice and opportunity to be heard.
Key Takeaways
- A properly entered preliminary criminal-forfeiture money judgment becomes final as to the defendant at sentencing even if it is not included in the judgment of conviction.
- A district court may later order forfeiture of substitute assets to satisfy an outstanding criminal-forfeiture money judgment.
- Third-party interests need not be resolved before a substitute-asset order is entered, and notice mailed to the defendant’s known residence may satisfy due process.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that an outstanding criminal-forfeiture money judgment may support later forfeiture of a defendant’s substitute property, even many years after sentencing. It also distinguishes the court’s authority to enter that order from the separate process for adjudicating third-party ownership claims.
For defense counsel, the opinion underscores the importance of timely objections during the Rule 32.2 forfeiture process. For prosecutors, it confirms that reasonably calculated mailed notice and compliance with Rule 32.2 can preserve the ability to pursue substitute assets after the original criminal judgment becomes final.