United States v. Pollard, No. 15-10246 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated identity theft and aiding and abetting, and one count of possessing a false identification document with the intent to defraud the United States. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's forfeiture order in the amount of $4,128,554.00. The court held that when a conviction for aggravated identity theft is premised on a proven or admitted violation of a predicate offense that is enumerated in the civil forfeiture statute, then forfeiture is authorized. The court concluded that the district court had statutory authority to enter a criminal forfeiture order because of defendant's conviction of aggravated identity theft, with a bank fraud predicate offense; defendant waived his Eighth Amendment claim; defendant waived his right to appeal the forfeiture order on notice grounds; and defendant waived his claim that the district court erred by not requiring the government to prove the amount of proceeds. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s $4,128,554 forfeiture order in a case in which the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated identity theft and aiding and abetting, and one count of possessing a false identification document with the intent to defraud the United States. The panel held that when a conviction for aggravated identity theft is premised on a proven or admitted violation of a predicate offense that is enumerated in the civil forfeiture statute, then forfeiture is authorized; and that the district court had statutory authority to enter a criminal forfeiture order in this case because of the defendant’s conviction of aggravated identity theft with a bank fraud predicate offense. The panel held that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to challenge the forfeiture as a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, on notice grounds, and on the ground that the district court erred by not requiring the government to prove the amount of proceeds. UNITED STATES V. POLLARD 3
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.