UNITED STATES v. ALQUZA (2018)

Nasser Kamal Alquza seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his motion seeking collateral review of the order of forfeiture entered following his conviction for cigarette trafficking and conspiracy to commit money laundering. On appeal, Alquza reasserts his argument that the forfeiture order is invalid pursuant to Honeycutt v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 1626, 198 L.Ed.2d 73 (2017).^* The district court correctly noted that Alquza's collateral attack on the final forfeiture order was untimely and, in any event, that Honeycutt addressed only forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1) (2012)—which provides for joint and several liability for coconspirators in certain drug crimes—and not forfeiture of property “involved in” money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) (2012), the basis on which the district court ordered forfeiture. See Honeycutt, 137 S.Ct. at 1632-35. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   We decline to address Alquza's request to amend his presentence report, which he raised for the first time on appeal.

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.