US v. Heldeman, No. 04-1915, affirms a civil forfeiture, but remands under Booker and United States v. Antonakopoulos, 399 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2005).
The court notes:
...we are inclined not to be overly demanding as to proof of probability where, either in the existing record or by plausible proffer, there is reasonable indication that the district judge might well have reached a different result under advisory guidelines. After all, it will be easy enough for the district judge on remand to say no with a minimum expenditure of effort if the sentence imposed under the pre-Booker guidelines regime is also the one that the judge would have imposed under the more relaxed post-Booker framework. This opinion has been circulated to the other active members of the court.
White Collar Crime Prof consider the case here.
The guy in US v Heldeman wasn't me. Too many "e"s in his last name.
Posted by: Sam Heldman | March 29, 2005 at 06:09 PM
It wasn't me, either. Too many "H"s, "L"s, "D"s, "E"s", and "M"s in his last name. Is there anyone else who isn't the subject of this court opinion, or who knows someone who wasn't?
Posted by: Ted | March 30, 2005 at 02:29 AM