Whether this Court should resolve the conflict between the
circuits regarding whether the 'deprivation of livelihood'
should be included in the proportionality analysis when de
termining whether a forfeiture meets the constitutionality
requirements of the Eighth Amendment's ban on Excessive
Fines?

Whether the proportionality analysis under the Excessive
Fines clause should include a 'fact specific' evaluation
of the circumstances of a criminal act to include the fac
tors of: 1) Negligence, 2) Recklessness, 3) Knowledge,
4) Intent, and 5) Maliciousness, to determine the extent
of the defendant's level of participation, knowledge of
the crime, and his degree of culpability to ensure the
amount of forfeiture bears a relationship to the criminal
activity?

Whether the amount of forfeiture ordered in a financial
structuring offense should be proportional to the ratio of
legitimate funds structured, as compared to the amount of
funds tainted by other criminal act(s), that resulted in
minimal, or no, illegal gain, to meet the constitutional
requirements of the Eighth Amendment?

Whether the proportionality analysis under the Excessive
Fines Clause should require a relationship between: 1)
the ratio of the sentence imposed, as compared to the up
per limit of either the Guideline recommendation, or the
applicable Statute; and 2) the amount of forfeiture or
dered as compared to the amount of funds structured?

Whether the 'deprivation of livelihood' should be included in the proportionality analysis when determining whether a forfeiture meets the constitutionality requirements of the Eighth Amendment's ban on Excessive Fines