United States v. Jeremy Wayne Harrell -Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred by imposing a criminal-forfeiture money judgment months after sentencing without complying with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4)(B), but determined the error was harmless and therefore affirmed the forfeiture order. In reaching that result, the panel ruled that Rule 32.2(b)(4)(B) is a non-jurisdictional, time-related directive subject to harmless-error review, rejecting the view—embraced by the Seventh Circuit—that the rule is a mandatory claim-processing requirement whose violation presumptively warrants relief.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4)(B)’s timing requirements are a time-related directive subject to harmless-error review or a mandatory claim-processing rule requiring reversal when violated.
Circuit Positions
Rule 32.2(b)(4)(B) is a time-related directive; violations are subject to harmless-error review.
Rule 32.2(b)(4)(B) is a mandatory claim-processing rule; violation requires reversal unless waived.
Conflict Summary
Most circuits treat Rule 32.2(b)(4)(B) as a flexible time-related directive; violations are reviewed for harmless error. The Seventh Circuit, by contrast, has suggested the rule is a mandatory claim-processing provision, implying automatic or presumptively prejudicial reversal when a district court fails to include forfeiture in the oral sentence and judgment on time.