In U.S. v. Machado, No. 05-11420 (Oct. 2, 2006), the Court rejected a defendant’s appeal of a forfeiture order.
The defendant claimed that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction when it entered the forfeiture order, because it entered the order nearly one year after entering the judgment of conviction, in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(d)(2), which requires forfeiture orders to be "included" in the judgment. Dismissing this appeal, the Court pointed out it lacked jurisdiction to consider the issue, because the appeal was filed outside the time limits of Fed. R. App. P. 4.
The Court also rejected Machado’s appeal of the denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) motion for the return of property. Noting that a district court has equitable jurisdiction over an untimely 41(g) motion, the Court found that since Machado was seeking return of the fruits of his crime, it would have been inequitable to grant him relief. Further, the claim was time-barred, because it was brought more than six years, outside the time limit for suits against the government set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a).
Finally, the Court rejected Machado’s reliance on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). This law empowers courts to fashion remedies in extraordinary cases. But: "This is not an extraordinary case that merits use of extraordinary authority."
