United States v. Jose Lara, No. 15-5874 (6th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 8, 2017.
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 17a0390n.06 Case No. 15-5874 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE ALBERTO LARA, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED Jul 03, 2017 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BEFORE: ROGERS, SUTTON, and COOK, Circuit Judges. COOK, Circuit Judge. In a previous opinion, we held in abeyance the issue of whether defendant Jose Alberto Lara could be found jointly and severally liable for the proceeds of a drug conspiracy in which he had participated. United States v. Lara, No. 15-5874, 2017 WL 527912, at *4 (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 2017). We did so because the Supreme Court had recently granted certiorari in a separate case to address “whether, under [21 U.S.C.] § 853, a defendant may be held jointly and severally liable for property that his co-conspirator derived from the crime but that the defendant himself did not acquire.” Honeycutt v. United States, --- S. Ct. ---, No. 16142, 2017 WL 2407468, at *3 (June 5, 2017). The Court now has resolved that question, holding that “[Congress] authorized the Government to confiscate assets only from the defendant who initially acquired the property and who bears responsibility for its dissipation.” Id. at *8; see also id. at *7–9 (rejecting the Case No. 15-5874, United States v. Jose Alberto Lara application of Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946), (i.e., conspiracy liability) to § 853). Because the district court held Lara liable under § 853 for $162,211—the sum of the drug proceeds attributed to the conspiracy as a whole—without making factual findings about what portion (if any) Lara “actually acquired” or whether he received “substitute property” derived from the proceeds, see id. at *7–9, we VACATE the district court’s sentence with respect to Lara’s money-forfeiture judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The judgment of the district court is otherwise AFFIRMED for the reasons given in our prior opinion. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
