No. 20-51

Pedro Pete Benevides v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2020-07-22
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: criminal-forfeiture eighth-amendment excessive-fine forfeiture ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel plea-bargaining sentencing-guidelines
Latest Conference: 2020-09-29
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Does the forfeiture of over $44 million constitute an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, where the forfeiture amount is more than 44 times greater than the statutory maximum fine and almost 3,000 times greater than the lower-end suggested in the Sentencing Guidelines?

2. Did the Eleventh Circuit err in denying a certificate of appealability on whether a defendant receives ineffective assistance where his attorney advises him to agree to a forfeiture amount that is unconstitutional, provides false assurances that his guilty plea will result in a minimal term of incarceration, and incorrectly states that he would be allowed to retain $3 million, and where the defendant would not have taken the guilty plea had he received proper advice from his attorney?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the forfeiture of over $44 million constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment

Docket Entries

2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-07-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-07-27
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-07-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 21, 2020)

Attorneys

Pedro Pete Benevides
Andrew Brooks Greenlee — Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent