Background
In 2015, a jury convicted Huey P. Williams, Jr., of one count of aiding and abetting healthcare fraud. Before sentencing, the district court entered a personal money judgment against him for $1,969,498.36 under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(7). The Fifth Circuit later affirmed his conviction and sentence.
In 2025, the district court ordered two properties owned by Williams forfeited as substitute assets to satisfy the outstanding money judgment. Williams appealed, arguing that the original forfeiture never became effective because it was neither pronounced at sentencing nor included in the written judgment. He also asserted that the substitute-assets order improperly disregarded third-party interests and that he did not receive constitutionally sufficient notice.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. It held that the district court followed Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2’s required procedures, so the money judgment operated as a preliminary forfeiture order and became final as to Williams at sentencing. The district court therefore retained authority under Rule 32.2(e) to order forfeiture of substitute assets to satisfy that judgment. Williams also had a sufficient opportunity to object to the money judgment, satisfying due process.
The court further held that the absence of consideration of third-party interests did not prevent entry of the substitute-assets order because such interests are addressed through separate ancillary procedures. Finally, notice sent by certified and first-class mail to Williams’s known residence was reasonably calculated to reach him and provide notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Key Takeaways
- A preliminary criminal-forfeiture money judgment that becomes final at sentencing may later be enforced against substitute assets.
- Potential third-party interests do not prevent a court from entering a preliminary order forfeiting substitute property; those claims are resolved separately.
- Mailing notice by certified and first-class mail to a defendant’s known residence can satisfy constitutional due process.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that a substantial passage of time does not eliminate a district court’s authority to identify and forfeit substitute assets when a valid criminal-forfeiture money judgment remains unpaid. It also distinguishes entry of the forfeiture order from the later process used to adjudicate third parties’ claimed interests.