# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Levin v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386011_0523%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1992 - **Citation:** 506 U.S. 815 ## Text a _& -| §vpreme Court, U.S. 91-1682 | FILED | APR 2 0 1992 No. 91- e+ Cee ne ow IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1991 ~~ EDWARD J. LEVIN, Petitioner, —against— UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI RICHARD B. LIND, Esq. Attorney for Petitioner 345 Park Avenue New York, New York 10154 (212) 888-0100 i QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Is the Double Jeopardy Clause’s prohibition against multiple punishments violated when a State, after sentencing a defendant in a state criminal action, punishes the defendant again by: (a) using the federal government as a ‘“*tool’’ to institute a federal civil in rem forfeiture against the defen- dant’s condominium; (b) splitting the proceeds of the federal in rem forfeiture action? 2. Is the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against dispro- portionate punishments, and excessive fines and penalties, transgressed by an in rem forfeiture of a condominium based on the sale of 2.5 grams of cocaine, where the owner’s equity ’ interest is 300 times greater than the value of the drugs sold? 3. Is the appropriate standard for forfeiture under Title 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) a ‘‘substantial connection’ test, as applied by the overwhelming majority of Circuits and as compelled by the applicable legislative history, or a less stringent, **suf- ficient nexus” test, as applied by the Second Circuit? 4. Is the Due Process Clause violated by an in rem civil forfeiture that is grossly excessive, disproportionate, and extracted to disable an individual? TABLE OF CONTENTS Questions Presented ..........ee eee cere eeereeeees Table of Cotes... cc cccreccssscnssssncesessseuns Table of Authorities. ..........cc cee ee cree eceeeees Opinions Below .......--.eeeee cece eee eeeeeseeeeees FurlaPictioR 6. ccc ccncsscdestunectaes ténnepetnsesees Statement Of The Case ........-.cceeeccccceccceees A. B. C. Factual Background..........seeeeeeeeeeees The Decision Of The District Court ......... The Decision Of The Circuit Court.........- Reasons For Granting The Writ ........--++++e+eees I. II. Ill. IV. This Court Should Resolve The Conflict Among The Circuits Regarding The Applicable Test In Forfeiture CaseS.........--+eeeeeee: Forfeiture Of The Condominium Violated The Double Jeopardy Clause Of The Fifth Amend- The Forfeiture Of Levin’s Condominium Vio- lated The Eighth Amendment .........-.---- Forfeiture Of The Condominium Violated The Due Process Clause Of The Fifth Amendment Comclusiog. .....csese cade ekssauns ah heneeeeeeo PAGE nA & NY NY 15 19 lil TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases PAGE Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959) .........+--- 11 Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. ZT CIDR) nc cccvccccccvcccvescccsccss 5, 12, 16 Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. GES CISTE). oo ccc ccecccccccccvencesccccsccess 6-7, 16, 18 Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986)...........- 15 Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) ......+.++- 12-13 Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 OSA Seer re Tee rere re ee eee eee 15 Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) 15 Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Humes,\15 U.S. 512 (1885) 16 Peterson v. Richardson, 370 F. Supp. 1259 (N.D.Tex. 1973), aff’d, 508 F.2d 45 (Sth Cir), cert. denied, 423 U.S. BOO CIDTS) 2.0 cc ccccccccccsccccccsccccccccns 17 St. Louis, I.M.& S. Ry. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63 PEPE ska sbrdascensnscccccvcccccossscescsccsese 16 Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) ......-----+++0+: 13-15 Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Danaher, ee ccc ea weeeeeseoseaaeaneecere 16 United States v. Aboumussallem, 726 F.2d 906 (2d Cir. cc cae seubeeenecceesdscscencsesesoecscccscss 11 United States v. Approximately 50 Acres of Real Estate Property, 920 F.2d 900 (11th os 3 Aree 9 United States v. Busher, 817 F.2d 1409 (9th Cir. 1984) 14 iV PAGE United States v. Certain Real Property and Premises Known as 38 Whalers Cove Drive, 747 F. Supp. 173 28k | Ree Teer ee ee eee 1, 4-6, 15-16 United States v. Certain Real Property and Premises Known as 38 Whalers Cove Drive, 954 F.2d 29 (2d 2 A SP er rere arr ey re 1, 6-7, 8-18, passim United States Currency, 874 F.2d 298 (Sth Cir. 1989). 8 United States v. Forfeiture, Stop Six Center, 781 F.Sae. TAO CD. TOR. FPA). ccc sccescccccnces 9 United States v. 526 Liscum Drive, 866 F.2d 213 (6th EE Sock wSuceRe ROR a Pan haw he eke dew eee 8 United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 CLdaees's cccesuyak es Neuetaenh 5-7, 10-12, 13, 16-18 United States v. Littlefield, 821 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. SARC Re ree mn ee Cee rs eee 14 United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado,.575 F.2d ee Ero eer rere 9 United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Sedan, 548 F.2d ib gS. sR to ne eee re ee 9 United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443 (9th Cir. 1990).............. 8 United States v. One Parcel of Land and Residence at 28 Emery St., 914 F.20 Ce. W9GD) oc vcncsccccsese 8 United States v. One Parcel of Real Estate Commonly Known As 916 Douglas Avenue, 903 F.2d 490 (7th Ce, Fe oc cis causes Neva eneens Cre usAGeeeeeus 8 United States v. One Parcel of Real Estate Located at 7715 Betsy Bruce Lane, 906 F.2d 110 (4th Cir. 1990) 8 United States v. One Tintoretto Painting, 691 F.2d 603 vv fe SS WPT eer rrrryviritriy Tiere Tre 17 United States v. Premises Known As 3639-2nd St., 869 i» @ Ff fo , Peeerererrrrr rrr re rrr Tr 8 PAGE United States v. Property Known As 6109 Grubb Road, 886 F.2d 618 (3d Cir. 1989)...........-.06- 8-9 United States v. The Premises And Real Property At 4492 South Livonia Road, 889 F.2d 1258 (2d Cir. PPT RTETEPECLETTeT i TITLE 6, 8, 9 United States v. $321,470.00, United States Currency, 874 F.2d 298 (Sth Cir. 1989) .........cccccececees 8 Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86 (1909) .. 16 Constitutional Amendments Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution..... 10-12, 15-18 Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution......... 12-15 Statutes Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Section 5B1.1(a)(2).... 15 rigik tom & | ‘ MPrerrerrr rier ery te 9 DE UBS DD 6 8 6 nn 6 eid ee careeeeeeeeass 8-9, 11 21 U.S.C. § BB1(eE)(IMA) ....... ccc cccccccccccccces 11 ae eo? SEY) |) Reerererrreri rr rr 11 NY Penal Law § 110.06. .....cccccccscccccccvcsecss 3 Law Review Pratt & Petersen, Civil Forfeitures in the Second Cir- cuit, 65 St. John’s L.Rev. 653 (1991) ........-.--- 9 Miscellaneous Authorities 1984 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 3182........ 9 1990 McKinney’s Session Laws, Ch. 655 .........--. 11 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1991 No. 91- - EDWARD J. LEVIN, Petitioner, —against-— UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse in the City of New York, on the 3rd day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-two. Present: HON. LAWRENCE W. PIERCE, HON. RALPH K. WINTER, HON. JOHN M. WALKER, Circuit Judges. — UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, — CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND PREMISES KNOWN AS 38 WHALERS COVE DRIVE, BABYLON, NEW YORK, Defendant, EDWARD J. LEVIN, Claimant-Appellant. —— [AMENDED OPINION] Appeal from the United States District Court for the East- ern District of New York. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and was argued by counsel. ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgement of said District 35a Court be and it hereby is affirmed in accordance with the opinion of this court with costs to be taxed against the appel- lant. ELAINE B. GOLDSMITH, Clerk By: Edward J. Guardaro, Deputy Clerk 36a UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Docket No. 90-6268 — At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, in the City of New York, on the twenty-first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-two. > UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, —_—V.— ! CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND PREMISES KNOWN AS 38 WHALERS COVE DRIVE, BABYLON, NEW YORK, Defendant, EDWARD J. LEVIN, Claimant-A ppellant. a A petition for rehearing containing a suggestion that the action be reheard in banc having been filed herein by Claimant-Appellant, Edward J. Levin. Upon consideration by the panel that heard the appeal, it is Ordered that said petition for rehearing is DENIED. It is further noted that the suggestion for rehearing in banc has been transmitted to the judges of the court in regular active service and to any other judge that heard the appeal and that no such judge has requested that a vote be taken thereon. ELAINE B. GOLDSMITH Clerk --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386011_0523%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.