McIntosh v. United States

In McIntosh v. United States, Louis McIntosh was convicted of robbery and brandishing a firearm. The district court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture for $75,000 but failed to include it in the final judgment. Years later, after McIntosh completed his sentence, the government sought to enforce the forfeiture. McIntosh argued the failure to enter a timely final order of forfeiture under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4)(B) barred collection. The Southern District of New York rejected this, but the Second Circuit reversed, holding the time limit is not jurisdictional. The Supreme Court unanimously held that a missed deadline under Rule 32.2(b)(4)(B) does not deprive the court of authority to enter a forfeiture order, and the government may seek forfeiture in a supplemental proceeding.

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Second Circuit, ruling that Rule 32.2(b)(4)(B)'s deadline is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule, allowing the government to seek forfeiture through a supplemental proceeding even if the deadline was missed.

Whether the time limit for entering a final order of criminal forfeiture under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4)(B) is a mandatory claims-processing rule or a jurisdictional limit that strips the court of authority to order forfeiture.

The ruling clarifies procedural rules for criminal asset forfeiture, ensuring that missed deadlines do not automatically invalidate forfeiture orders. It reinforces the government's ability to seize criminal proceeds, impacting prosecutorial practices and defendants' post-conviction rights.