United States v. Vera Lee Peacock, Hoyle Lamont Peacock
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vera Lee PEACOCK, Hoyle Lamont Peacock, Defendants-Appellants
Subsequent history: aff'd sub nom. Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
IT IS ORDERED that the government’s petition for rehearing is GRANTED.
Part V of our opinion dealt with the forfeiture of insurance proceeds acquired by the appellants. Bound at the time by the decision in United States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1981), we held that 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (a) did not authorize the forfeiture of the profits of a RICO offense and reversed the district court’s forfeiture order. 654 F.2d 339 at 351-52 .
After our opinion issued, the Former Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted rehearing en banc as to the portion of Martino that dealt with forfeiture. The court held that § 1963(a) does encompass “forfeiture of the income or proceeds of racketeering activity.”
United States v. Martino, 681 F.2d 952, 961 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc).
Accordingly, upon our reconsideration, so much of Part V of our opinion as dealt with the scope of section 1963(a) is vacated. The district court’s forfeiture order is affirmed for the reasons stated in the Fifth Circuit’s en banc opinion in Martino.
In all other respects, the panel adheres to the opinion previously issued, and appellants’ petition for rehearing is DENIED.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.