United States v. Lee Farkas , 688 F. App'x 227 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7559
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEE BENTLEY FARKAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00200-LMB-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2017 Decided: May 5, 2017
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lee Bentley Farkas, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lee Bentley Farkas appeals the district court’s orders denying his “motion to
forfeit direct proceeds of crime or substitute assets” and his motion for reconsideration.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Farkas, No.
1:10-cr-00200-LMB-1 (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 3 & entered Oct. 4, 2016; filed & entered Oct.
21, 2016); see Ponormo v. United States, 814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir. 2016) (recognizing
that issues raised for first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional
circumstances); Young v. United States, 489 F.3d 313, 315 (7th Cir. 2007) (“[A] criminal
forfeiture is part of the defendant’s sentence and must be challenged on direct appeal or
not at all.”); United States v. Pelullo, 178 F.3d 196, 202 (3d Cir. 1999) (recognizing that
“the order of forfeiture entered at sentencing is a final order with respect to the defendant
from which he can appeal,” as it “conclusively determines all of the defendant’s interest
in the forfeited property” and “the defendant generally has no standing to participate in
the ancillary proceeding that takes place after the forfeiture order is entered at
sentencing”). We deny Farkas’ emergency motion for issuance of a temporary
restraining order. 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
2