USA V. SHIRLEY COLLETTI, No. 09-10279 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 18 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 09-10279 D.C. No. 3:95-cr-00049-HDMNA-5 v. SHIRLEY COLLETTI, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Howard D. McKibben, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 19, 2012 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Shirley Colletti was convicted in 1999 for wire fraud and RICO offenses in connection with a scheme to hide taxable income from a Nevada brothel. In 2001, a $220,000 forfeiture order was entered against her for those crimes. In 2008, the district court allowed the government to substitute Colletti s newly acquired * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. money in satisfaction of the forfeiture. Colletti appeals that substitution, and we affirm. The government diligently asserted its rights, filing its motion to substitute within two years after Colletti s acquisition of the money. The government was not guilty of laches. See Huseman v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 471 F.3d 1116, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). Colletti also argues that the substitution of her newly acquired money unconstitutionally deprives her of her livelihood in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The authority on which she relies, United States v. Levesque, 546 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2008), involved the amount of the original forfeiture order. Colletti offers no authority to support her position that a change of circumstances can affect the constitutional validity of a forfeiture that was not excessive at the time it was ordered. Assuming it could, however, the district court provided adequate protection by ensuring that the substitution order did not touch her social security or pension. The order of the district court is AFFIRMED. 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.
