Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
739 bytes added ,  00:52, September 21, 2020
→‎Not pro-government: dissent in a forfeiture case
Line 66: Line 66:  
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.}}
 
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.}}
 
''Castillo v. State'', 217 So. 3d 1110, 1115 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)
 
''Castillo v. State'', 217 So. 3d 1110, 1115 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)
 +
 +
As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the [[Eleventh Circuit]], Judge Lagoa dissented from a panel decision awarding a forfeiture to the government:
 +
{{cquote|I respectfully disagree, however, with the majority's discussion in Parts III(C) and IV of the opinion. The government has not yet sought substitute asset forfeiture. Similarly, the district court has not yet made the factual findings for it to conclude whether or not the forfeiture amount is excessive under the Eighth Amendment. Because it is premature for this Court to reach either of those issues on this appeal, I respectfully dissent from those portions of the majority opinion.}}
 +
 +
''United States v. Hatum'', 969 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2020) (Lagoa, J., dissenting).
    
==Family==
 
==Family==
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,912

edits

Navigation menu