Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Enriquez

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

August 23, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ROGELIO ENRIQUEZ, Defendant.

          MICHAEL J. FLANAGAN Attorney for Defendant

          Byron M. Jones Assistant United States Attorney

          Debra Teufel Phillips Assistant United States Attorney

          CONSENT ORDER OF FORFEITURE CONSISTING OF A $341, 800.00 UNITED STATES CURRENCY MONEY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT ONE

          Aleta A. Trauger United States District Judge.

         Based on the Defendant Rogelio Enriquez' plea of guilty to Count One of the Third Superseding Indictment, the representations and agreements of the Government and Defendant, the Plea Agreement, the consent of the defendant, the facts of this case and the pleadings in this matter, the Court finds as follows:

         WHEREAS, on September 30, 2015, the Government filed a forty-four count Third Superseding Indictment charging Defendant, in pertinent part at Count One with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy to commit the filing of false claims against the United States, wire fraud, and theft of public money over $1, 000);

         WHEREAS, the forfeiture allegation of the Third Superseding Indictment gave notice, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), that upon conviction of the conspiracy to commit wire fraud and theft of public money alleged in Count One, Defendant shall forfeit any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to such offense. The property to be forfeited included a money judgment in the amount of at least $2, 500, 000.00;

         WHEREAS, the forfeiture allegation of the Third Superseding Indictment also gave notice to Defendant that in the event the proceeds, as a result of any act or omission of Defendant:

a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;
c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;
d. has been substantially diminished in value; or
e. has been commingled with other property that cannot be divided without difficulty,

         the United States shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property and the United States intends pursuant to Title 21 United States Code, Section 853(p) to seek forfeiture of any other property of Defendant Rogelio Enriquez up to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.