United States v. Levesque
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
546 F.3d 78 (2008)
- Written by Patrick Speice, JD
Facts
Tammy Levesque (defendant) was pulled over for speeding while under surveillance for suspected participation in a marijuana-distribution operation. During the traffic stop, state troopers found 94 pounds of marijuana in Levesque’s car. Levesque admitted to transporting marijuana to numerous eastern states several times per week for the prior eight months. Levesque was arrested, charged, and pled guilty to conspiring to possess marijuana with intent to distribute the marijuana. The government sought forfeiture of more than $3 million from Levesque, based on an estimate of how much marijuana Levesque had transported and the estimated value of that quantity of marijuana. Levesque objected to the government’s forfeiture claim, arguing that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment required a much lower monetary penalty proportional to Levesque’s culpability considering Levesque’s relatively minor role in the marijuana-distribution operation, limited earnings from the operation, and lack of other assets to satisfy the forfeiture claim. The district court disagreed, finding that forfeiture of the reasonably foreseeable proceeds of the entire marijuana-distribution operation was not grossly disproportional under the Excessive Fines Clause. Levesque appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lynch, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
