Libretti v. United States

4 Citing briefs

  1. USA v. BNP Paribas S.A.

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW

    Filed July 17, 2014

    Upon establishing the Corporate Officer’s authority to represent and speak on behalf of BNPP in the proceeding, we respectfully request that the Court confirm BNPP’s intention to waive indictment pursuant to Rule 7(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and permit the Government to proceed pursuant to an Information. We request that the Court then conduct a full allocution pursuant to Rule 11(b), including advising the defendant of the rights it is giving up by pleading guilty; establishing that the forfeiture order was agreed to knowingly and voluntarily, Libretti, 516 U.S. at 42; and establishing a factual basis for the plea by permitting the Corporate Officer, and if appropriate the Government, to address how the Bank’s conduct meets all of the elements of the count charged in the Information. (On June 30, 2014, the Government submitted to the Court the Government’s view of the necessary elements of the charged conspiracy.)

  2. United States of America v. All Monies, Including Insurance Benefits and Interest, Payable Pursuant to Claim Number 1179068 Under Minnesota Life Insurance Group Policy No. 33772-G, for Basic Life Insurance Coverage in the Amount

    RESPONSE

    Filed June 9, 2016

    5 That Congress chose to enact § 981(a)(1)(G) as a civil (in rem) rather than a criminal (in personam) forfeiture provision reflects an intent that the terrorism section apply beyond circumstances in which a defendant suffers a criminal conviction because civil forfeiture includes no such requirement. See Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 39 (1995) (criminal forfeiture is part of a defendant’s sentence following conviction of a substantive criminal offense); United States v. Davenport, 668 F.3d 1316, 1320 (11th Cir. 2012) (criminal forfeiture applies to property with a nexus to the crime of conviction). The distinction is important in the terrorism context, where, as here, a terrorist intends to “martyr” himself during the course of the terrorist act.

  3. Duke v. United States of America

    MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence

    Filed December 22, 2015

    Moreover, “It is the responsibility of defense counsel to inform a defendant of the advantages and disadvantages of a plea agreement….” Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 50 (1995). As such, for a decision to plead guilty to be exercised voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, a defendant must have “sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.”

  4. USA v. E-GOLD, LTD. et al

    MOTION to Vacate SEIZURE WARRANT AND TO MODIFY RESTRAINING ORDER AND REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING

    Filed June 1, 2007

    of Forfeiture” – as opposed to an actual forfeiture count – contained in the indictment. Because forfeiture is merely an aspect of sentencing, it does not necessitate consideration by the grand jury; Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29 (1995); Rule 7(c)(2), Fed. R. Crim. P. 8 The Second Circuit’s due process analysis can also be seen to support the broader notion that, without regard to the need to obtain counsel, a defendant is entitled to a hearing on the restraint of his or her property after the restraint has been imposed. That is the view expressed by the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Kirschenbaum, 156 F.3d 784, 793 (7th Cir. 1998).