Case Explained: 26a0190p.06

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-02 The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of criminal forfeiture against Jeremy Wayne Harrell, rejecting his request to vacate the sentence despite acknowledging that the district court committed procedural errors. The court held that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4)(B) by failing to orally announce the forfeiture decision at sentencing and by omitting the forfeiture order from the initial written judgments, instead imposing it via a second amended judgment more than five months after the sentencing hearing. The court’s primary legal basis for affirming the sentence was that Rule 32.2(b)(4)(B) constitutes a “time-related directive” rather than a mandatory claim-processing rule or jurisdictional deadline. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in *McIntosh v. United States*, which abrogated the Sixth Circuit’s prior precedent in *United States v. Maddux*, the panel determined that violations of this rule are subject to harmless-error review under Rule 52(a). The court found the error harmless because Harrell received fair notice of the forfeiture amount through the indictment and pre-sentencing motions, had a full opportunity to contest the forfeiture at the sentencing hearing and in post-sentencing briefing, and failed to raise any meaningful substantive arguments against the forfeiture. Additionally, the court ruled that while the district court violated Harrell’s right to presence under Rule 43(a) by imposing forfeiture outside his physical presence, this error did not affect his substantial rights because he had ample other opportunities to be heard on the issue. Finally, the court concluded there was no impermissible conflict between the oral sentence and the written judgment, as the oral pronouncement explicitly deferred the forfeiture decision for later resolution. As a practical consequence, Harrell’s conviction and sentence, including the $108,454.88 forfeiture order, remain in full force and effect. The appellate court declined to vacate the sentence or remand the case for resentencing, allowing the forfeiture judgment to stand despite the procedural irregularities in its timing and entry. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.