United States v. Shirley Colletti ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                               MAY 18 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 09-10279
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 3:95-cr-00049-HDM-
    NA-5
    v.
    SHIRLEY COLLETTI,                                MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Howard D. McKibben, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted April 19, 2012
    San Francisco, California
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    Shirley Colletti was convicted in 1999 for wire fraud and RICO offenses in
    connection with a scheme to hide taxable income from a Nevada brothel. In 2001,
    a $220,000 forfeiture order was entered against her for those crimes. In 2008, the
    district court allowed the government to substitute Colletti’s newly acquired
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    money in satisfaction of the forfeiture. Colletti appeals that substitution, and we
    affirm.
    The government diligently asserted its rights, filing its motion to substitute
    within two years after Colletti’s acquisition of the money. The government was
    not guilty of laches. See Huseman v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 
    471 F.3d 1116
    , 1126
    (9th Cir. 2006).
    Colletti also argues that the substitution of her newly acquired money
    unconstitutionally deprives her of her livelihood in violation of the Eighth
    Amendment. The authority on which she relies, United States v. Levesque, 
    546 F.3d 78
     (1st Cir. 2008), involved the amount of the original forfeiture order.
    Colletti offers no authority to support her position that a change of circumstances
    can affect the constitutional validity of a forfeiture that was not excessive at the
    time it was ordered. Assuming it could, however, the district court provided
    adequate protection by ensuring that the substitution order did not touch her social
    security or pension.
    The order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-10279

Judges: Graber, Schroeder, Thomas

Filed Date: 5/18/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024