United States v. Donald P. McManigal
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald P. McMANIGAL, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
ORDER On consideration of the parties’ Circuit Rule 19 statements, filed this month in the light of Russello v. United States, _ U.S. _, 104 S.Ct. 296 , 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983), our judgment of May 19, 1983 (see 708 F.2d 276 ) is vacated insofar as it holds that “any interest” in forfeiture section of racketeering statute ( 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (a)(1) does not include proceeds derived from a pattern of racketeering activity ( 708 F.2d at 283-287 ) but is reaffirmed insofar as it holds that the United States can only recover whatever accounts receivable were still in existence at time of defendant’s conviction ( 708 F.2d at 287-290 ).
2
Therefore the district court’s order forfeiting $99,700 to the United States remains reversed.
2
. This question was left open in Russello .
_ U.S. at _ n. 3, 104 S.Ct. at 304 n. 3.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(non-fiduciary of corporation guilty for scheming with employee who did owe fiduciary duty to the corporation)
Cited by 10 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.