McIntosh v. United States

Background

Louis McIntosh, a man convicted of violent Hobbs Act robberies and related firearm offenses, was indicted with a forfeiture demand and told in a pretrial notice that the Government sought $75,000 and a BMW as proceeds. At sentencing the District Court orally ordered forfeiture of $75,000 and the BMW but had not entered the written preliminary forfeiture order beforehand; the Government later failed to file the proposed order, the case was remanded, and the District Court then entered a preliminary order for $28,000 and the BMW before the final forfeiture order issued. The Second Circuit affirmed in relevant part and this Court agreed to decide the timing question.

Reasoning

The Court framed the issue as whether missing the pre-sentencing written order blocks a judge from imposing forfeiture. It explained three types of timing limits and concluded the specific Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B) is a time-related directive, not a jurisdictional or mandatory claim-processing rule. Because the rule does not specify a consequence for noncompliance, judges retain power to order forfeiture even if the preliminary order deadline is missed, and such errors are reviewed for harmlessness on appeal. The Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s judgment in a unanimous opinion.

Real world impact

The ruling means judges can impose criminal forfeitures despite missed pre-sentencing paperwork, but appellate courts will assess whether the timing error was harmless. Defendants should raise timely objections to preserve their rights, and prosecutors and courts should follow the Rule’s timing to avoid litigation over harmlessness.