In United States v. Amodeo, No. 15-12643 (Feb. 21,
2019) (William Pryor, Rosenbaum, Moore), the Court held that a criminal
defendant lacked Article III standing to appeal the partial vacatur of a final
forfeiture order entered in his case.
The preliminary forfeiture order extinguished all of the
defendant's interests in the property (here, two shell companies). After no third parties claimed ownership, the
court entered a final order forfeiting the companies to the government. Subsequently, the defendant's victims brought
a lawsuit and named the two companies as defendants. The government had no interest in defending
those companies in the lawsuit, and so it moved to partially vacate the final
forfeiture order to divest itself of any ownership in the companies. The district court granted that request. The defendant then sought to appeal that
order, but the Eleventh Circuit found that it did not aggrieve him in any
way. It reasoned that the preliminary
forfeiture order had extinguished his interest in the companies, and the partial
vacatur of the final forfeiture order did not revive any ownership interest of
his. Because he had no
ownership interest in the companies, and thus no potential liability in the
lawsuit, he lacked Article III standing to bring the appeal.
Judge Rosenbaum concurred in the judgment. She agreed that the defendant lacked
standing, but disagreed that Article III standard must always be determined
first when more than one non-merits issue could dispose of a case.
