United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
D. Whitney Chief United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court on Defendant, Nasser Kamal
Alquza's, pro se “Motion to declare the
United States of America in violation of the Forfeiture
Order; and Motion in Objection to the Forfeiture of Specific
Assets based on Honeycutt” (Doc. 638) and the
Government's Response in Opposition (Doc. 641).
Defendant, who was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to
launder millions in cigarette trafficking proceeds,
challenges final forfeiture of substitute properties to
partially satisfy a money judgment calculated based on the
proceeds of Defendant's crimes and amount that he
laundered. In support of his Motion, Defendant cites
Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1626 (2017)-a
case on calculation of forfeiture money judgments in drug
conspiracies. Since the forfeiture is final pursuant to the
clear language of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2 and there is not a
legal basis for Defendant's untimely collateral attack
and challenge, this Court DENIES his Motion. In support of
denying the Motion, the Court FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
February 4, 2013, a Jury returned verdicts of guilt (Doc.
273) against Defendant for his role in a cigarette
trafficking and money laundering conspiracy charged in a
Second Superseding Indictment (Doc. 245). The Jury returned
verdicts of guilt on the Count One charge of conspiracy to
receive and transport stolen property, the Count Seven charge
of money laundering conspiracy, and the Count Nine charge of
concealment money laundering. Essentially, Defendant was
convicted for his role as a professional and highly paid
money launderer who received and laundered millions in crime
proceeds in exchange for $275, 000. See Opinion
(Doc. 579) at Page 4.
February 10, 2014, following briefing and a hearing (Docs.
285, 432, 509), this Court entered a Preliminary Order (nunc
pro tunc) (Doc. 446) for, among other items, the following:
(1) an $8, 400, 000 forfeiture money judgment based on a
calculation of the “value of property that was proceeds
of or involved in defendant's [Count One and Count Seven
conspiracy] crimes, as reasonably foreseeable to the
defendant [ . . . ]”; and
(2) the following three real properties that constitute 21
U.S.C. § 853(p) substitute property: 1609 Oakhurst Dr.,
Mt. Pleasant, SC (“the Oakhurst Drive Property”);
337 Whitfield Dr., Lexington, KY (“the Whitfield
Property”); and 1479 Boardwalk, Lexington, KY
(“the Boardwalk Property”).
Preliminary Order (Doc. 446) at Pages 1-3. This Preliminary
Order was incorporated into the sentence. Judgment in a
Criminal Case (Doc. 482) at Page 5. Ancillary proceedings
ensued. Then, in a First Final Order and Judgment Confirming
Forfeiture (Doc. 574), this Court adjudicated third party
petitions and finally forfeited the three real properties.
appeal, Defendant challenged evidentiary rulings and
calculation of the sentence. Opinion at Doc. 579. The Fourth
Circuit affirmed the conviction but remanded for a
recalculation of Sentencing Guidelines loss based on an
expanded inquiry into the intended victim or victims of the
resentencing on March 30, 2016, on stipulation of the
parties, the Court calculated the Sentencing Guidelines loss
as around $6, 000, 000 and less than $7, 000, 000, and
resentenced Defendant to 87 months imprisonment. Transcript
of Resentencing (Doc. 626) at Pages 6-7. 12. The Court again
ordered forfeiture, this time of a $6, 000, 000 forfeiture
money judgment consistent with the Guidelines calculation
stipulation and of items identified in the Government's
Notice Regarding Forfeiture at Sentencing (Doc. 605).
Transcript (Doc. 626) at Page 36; Amended Judgment (Doc. 611)
at Page 5. The Notice listed, among other items, final orders
referencing the three real properties. Upon oral
pronouncement of forfeiture at resentencing, Defendant did
not object. Transcript (Doc. 626) at Pages 36-37.
did not appeal the resentence or Amended Judgment, or any
orders of forfeiture, and the time for doing so pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) has long since expired. Defendant did
later file a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (WDNC Case 3:16cv610; Doc.
1). On February 7, 2017, this Court denied (WDNC Case
3:16cv610; Doc. 11) that Motion and declined to issue a
certificate of appealability.
year-and-a half after resentencing, Defendant invites this
Court to reopen orders that finally adjudicated not only his
rights, but also third party rights, to three real
properties. Based on the following analysis, this Court
declines Defendant's untimely invitation.