- 16 -
Caplin & Drysdale v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 627 (1989).
Neither petitioner’s nor our understanding of 21 U.S.C. sec.
853(c) is of moment, however, since we, as well as respondent,
must respect the forfeiture order and have no warrant to reject
it. The rule is clear: “[I]t is for the court of first instance
to determine the question of the validity of the law, and until
its decision is reversed for error by orderly review, either by
itself or by a higher court, its orders based on its decision are
to be respected.” Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 313
(1995) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
When, on or about February 18, 1999, respondent complied
with the forfeiture order, the order had neither been vacated nor
had the decision to issue it been reversed. Barring his
challenging the order under 21 U.S.C. sec. 853(c), respondent was
dutybound to comply. Since he did not challenge it, and was
under no obligation to do so (see infra), he committed no error
in complying with the order. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit vacated petitioner’s sentence and
remanded the case for resentencing but left the forfeiture order
intact, and the forfeiture order is not subject to collateral
attack in this court. See Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, supra. We
fail to see how Appeals abused its discretion in determining not
to give petitioner credit for funds received from petitioner (the
$2 million remittance) that respondent was forced to disgorge to
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011