United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
MATTHEW SCHNEIDER United States Attorney, Adriana Dydell,
Assistant United States Attorney.
Charles Grossmann, Attorney for Defendant, Marelle Dye
STIPULATED PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
United States of America, by and through its attorneys,
Matthew Schneider, United States Attorney for the Eastern
District of Michigan, and Adriana Dydell, Assistant United
States Attorney, together with Defendant Marelle Dye
(“Defendant”), individually and by and through
his attorney, Charles Grossmann, submit this Stipulated
Preliminary Order of Forfeiture to the Court and stipulate
and agree to the following:
United States of America (the “United States”)
obtained a felony Indictment on or around December 19, 2018,
which charged Defendant with Counts One through Eight,
Distribution of Cocaine Base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1), Count Nine, Possession with Intent to Distribute
Cocaine Base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and
Count Ten, Felon in Possession of Firearm, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (ECF No. 10). The Indictment
contains forfeiture allegations under 21 U.S.C. § 853
and 18 U.S.C. § 924(d). Specifically, the United States
identified a Ruger Model 9E 9mm semi-automatic handgun
bearing serial number 33731985 and Kel-Tec Model Sub 2000 9mm
semiautomatic assault rifle bearing serial number EW561.
or about April 25, 2019, Defendant pleaded guilty to Counts
Nine and Ten of the Indictment.
his Rule 11 Plea Agreement (“Rule 11”), Defendant
agreed to forfeit the following firearms as property involved
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) under 18 U.S.C.
1. Ruger, Model 9E, 9mm, semiautomatic handgun, serial number
2. Kel-Tec, Model Sub 2000, 9mm, semiautomatic assault rifle,
serial number EW561.
the Rule 11, Defendant agreed to the entry of one or more
orders of forfeiture of the Subject Property.
the Rule 11, Defendant acknowledged his understanding that
forfeiture is part of the sentence that may be imposed on him
in this case and waived his right to challenge any failure by
the court to advise him of this pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(J). Defendant also expressly
waived his right to have a jury determine the forfeitability
of his interest in the Subject Property under Rule 32.2(b)(5)
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
his Rule 11, Defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and
intelligently waived any challenge to the forfeiture of the
Subject Property based on the Excessive Fines Clause of the
Defendant agrees that this order shall be final as to his
interest in the Subject Property at entry. Defendant further
waives the requirements of Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure 32.2 and 43(a) regarding notice of forfeiture in
the charging instrument, ...