Legal Opinion
United States v. Sarbello
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided February 2, 1993No. Nos. 91-5327, 91-5328 and 91-5650PublishedCited by 78 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
MANSMANN, Circuit Judge.
This appeal arises from the criminal forfeiture under RICO 1 provision 18 U.S.C. § 1963 of Michael Sarbello’s and Joseph Centurione’s entire interest in a legitimate corrugated box manufacturing business, which the jury found Sarbello and his co-defendants “established, operated, controlled, conducted or participated in the conduct of in violation of the racketeering laws” to the extent of 10% of the total assets of the enterprise.
Sarbello and Centurione argue that the scope of the forfeiture authorized under the statute violates the eighth and…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Delaware v. Van ArsdallSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Solem v. HelmSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Harmelin v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Rummel v. EstelleSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by78 opinions
- United States v. DeFries, Clayton E.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997
- Harris v. City of PhiladelphiaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- United States v. Real Property Located in El Dorado County at 6380 Little Canyon RoadCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- United States v. Joseph A. Kirschenbaum, A/K/A Ari Kirschenbaum, Appeal Of: Julie KirschenbaumCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998
- United States v. Ferris AlexanderCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1994
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.